The UCL Practitioner has moved! Please visit the first and only weblog on California's Business & Professions Code section 17200 (otherwise known as the Unfair Competition Law or "UCL") at its new home, www.uclpractitioner.com.
Proposition 64:
Text of Proposition 64
Trial Court Orders
Appellate Opinions
Pending Appeals
Appellate Briefs
The CLRA:
Text of the CLRA
Class Actions:
Code Civ. Proc. §382
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
"Fairness" Act
Recent Posts:
California Supreme Court grants review in two UCL ...
The irony
"Fees Case Needed Bad Faith"
New CLRA decision
Moradi-Shalal reaffirmed
"How Things Work: Restitution and the Unfair-Compe...
"AG Sues Enron, Alleges Massive Fraud"
Public entities not bound by UCL
"Cash pours in for 17200 fight: Businesses cough u...
More on Lockyer's energy lawsuits
California Law Blogs:
Bag and Baggage
California Appellate Report
California Election Law
California Labor & Employment Law
California Wage Law
Class Action Spot
Criminal Appeal
Declarations and Exclusions
Alextronic Discovery
Employment Law Observer
Freespace
Gilbert Submits
Law Limits
Legal Commentary
The Legal Reader
May it Please the Court
Ninth Circuit Blog (criminal)
Public Defender Dude
Silicon Valley Media Law Blog
So Cal Law Blog
More Law Blogs:
Abstract Appeal
Appellate Law & Practice
Between Lawyers
Blawg Republic
Blawg Review
Blog 702
Closing Argument
The Common Scold
Connecticut Law Blog
Corp Law Blog
Delaware Law Office
Dennis Kennedy
eLawyer Blog
Election Law
Employee Relations Law and News
Employment Blawg
Ernie the Attorney
Groklaw
Have Opinion, Will Travel
How Appealing
InhouseBlog
Inter Alia
Internet Cases
IP Law Observer
LawMeme
LawSites
Legal Blog Watch
Legal Tags
Legal Underground
LibraryLaw Blog
My Shingle
netlawblog
the [non]billable hour
Out-of-the-Box Lawyering
Point of Law
Real Lawyers Have Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
TechnoLawyer Blog
UnivAtty
The Volokh Conspiracy
The UCL Practitioner
Friday, June 25, 2004
Blogosphere comment on the Janik decision
Declarations and Exclusions has this detailed post on Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff.
The Legal Reader has this to say: "Section 17200 was bad enough when it was an occassional tool for clever plaintiffs' attorneys. Now, apparently, it is mandatory."
And So Cal Lawyer says, "Pardon me, I have to go now and file motions to amend all of my pending business litigation complaints to include 17200 claims."
(My original post on Janik is here.)
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 8:07 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment