Court of Appeal modifies UCL "restitution" opinion: Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, the Court of Appeal issued an Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Respondents' Petition for Rehearing in Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 10, 2006). My original post on Colgan is here. The most interesting thing in the modification order is new footnote 24, concerning the nature of "restitution":

“[T]he terms equity and equitable are not always used to refer to remedial characteristics of a case. ... [E]quitable ... sometimes refers to fairness, sometimes to the jurisdictional mass of equity precedent, sometimes to remedies.” (Dobbs, Law of Remedies (2d ed. 1993) Meaning of Equity, § 2.1(3), p. 55; see 12 Corbin on Contracts (Interim edition 2002) Restitution, § 1103, p. 10 [“The remedy of restitution . . . can not properly be described as either ‘legal’ or ‘equitable’ in any narrowly restricted signification of those terms”].)

(Mod. Order at 2.)