January 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« New UCL statute of limitations opinion: Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp. | Main | Another U.S. Supreme Court decision hinges on a party concession: Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter »

Friday, June 14, 2013



What one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

If the California legislature can provide a civil remedy for unlawful business practices via the UCL, why can't it also provide some laws that preclude a UCL remedy? It seems to me that this all boils down to a matter of statutory interpretation, i.e. should we interpret CCP 2025.510 as providing an exclusive remedy. Now that is a difficult question to answer: there is no exclusive language associated with 2025.510, but it seems terribly inefficient and chaotic to circumvent the CCP with the UCL.

In the end, the courts should set a very high burden to show that a given statute preempts a UCL remedy. If the threshold is too low then the UCL exception will be frequently misapplied since the relationship of every single statute to the UCL would be an issue of first impression. In Rose and Zhang I would go with the plaintiffs. I'm not so sure about Kramer, though that's largely owing to the fact that I'm psychologically unsettled by the thought that the CCP is not the only set of procedures applicable in my California cases.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Hi Chris, the legislature could do that, problem is it didn't here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 Supreme Court Calendar




  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad

  • StatCounter