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:
Justice Chin mentions Proposition 64
Updates on Twomey and Krumme
Krumme rehearing petition denied
Another retroactivity article—and another trial co...
Articles on Proposition 64 and retroactivity
Trial judge holds Prop. 64 inapplicable to pending...
MCLE program tomorrow on Proposition 64 retroactivity
"17200: Motions Seek Prop 64 Retroactivity"
Happy Thanksgiving!
And then there were three
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
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Appellate panel ignores Proposition 64 in unpublished opinion
Many thanks to the reader who alerted me to Banales v. Superior Court (AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.), No. B177019 (Dec. 3, 2004), an unpublished opinion issued yesterday. In Banales, the Second Appellate District, Division Eight, completely ignored Proposition 64 in reversing the trial court's order striking the unaffected plaintiff's prayer for restitution. In so holding, the Court declared that "the UCL permits a private plaintiff who has suffered no injury at all to sue to obtain relief for others, including restitution," and that "sections 17203 and 17204 confer standing to prosecute actions for relief not only on the public officials named therein, but also on private individuals, and a private plaintiff who has suffered no injury may sue to obtain injunctive relief for others." Slip op. at 3, 5. The Court took pains to distinguish UCL class actions from UCL representative actions, and proclaimed it a "settled issue that section 17204 confers standing on private individuals who have suffered no injury to sue to obtain injunctive relief and restitution for others." Id. at 6. The Court concluded:
[Plaintiff] did not allege he was an AT&T customer or that he was suing in an individual capacity. He clearly is suing solely in a representative capacity. But the fact [that plaintiff] may not individually be entitled to restitution does not mean his allegations regarding restitution are improper. The allegations are proper for the very reason that he is suing in a representative capacity, which sections 17203 and 17204 clearly allow.Id. The docket suggests that the Proposition 64 retroactivity issue may have been brought to the Court's attention. I can only conclude that the panel believed that Proposition 64 did not apply to pending cases filed before its effective date.
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 8:20 PM
![](https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif)
Comments:
The docket indicates that counsel for the respondent and the real party in interest both submitted supplemental letter briefs on November 22 asking that the writ petition be denied. The rest of the briefing was completed before Proposition 64 went into effect on November 3. I freely admit that this is a guess on my part, but I would be very surprised if Proposition 64 was NOT raised in those supplemental letter briefs. If anyone has further information on this case, please write in and I will be happy to post more about it.
Post a Comment