UCL "unlawful" prong hypothetical

UCL - "unlawful" prong
Written By

A reader posits a hypothetical case in which the plaintiff's UCL "unlawful" prong claim is predicated on an alleged violation of a criminal statute. In response to the plaintiff's initial round of written discovery, the defendant asserts the Fifth Amendment. What do you think about invoking the Fifth Amendment in a UCL case, and how should the plaintiff respond?

Previous

Supreme Court grants review in another Prop. 64 case: Young America Corp. v. Superior Court
Next

New unpublished Prop. 64 retroactivity opinion: Banales v. AT&T Wireless