The UCL Practitioner
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
 
Proposition 64 has passed
The Secretary of State reports this morning that Proposition 64 has passed, 58.9% in favor to 41.1% against, with 100% of precincts reporting. Here is a map of the voting. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out. The UCL Practitioner will, of course, continue to report on developments.
Comments:
Does Section 17203, as now amended, apply retroactively? Are actions now pending where the plaintiff doesn't have standing now barred?
 
I have the same question. In Younger v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 102 (1978, the California Supreme Court discussed "the well settled rule that an action wholly dependent on statute abates if the statute is repealed without a saving clause before the judgment is final. (See, e.g., Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829-831 [135 Cal.Rptr. 526, 558 P.2d 1], and cases cited; Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1, 11-12 [97 P.2d 963]; Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644, 652-653 [293 P. 62, 77 A.L.R. 1327].) "'The justification for this rule is that all statutory remedies are pursued with full realization that the legislature may abolish the right to recover at any time.'" (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) supra, 18 Cal.3d 819, 829, quoting from Callet v. Alioto (1930) 210 Cal. 65, 67-68 [290 P. 438].)"
 
In Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 120, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 926, 931 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2004), the Court of Appeal held that the enactment of CCP 425.17, which amended CCP 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute), effected a "partial repeal" of the statute and, as such, was within the rule that "when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, 'a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.'"
 
Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger


© 2003-2005 by Kimberly A. Kralowec