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.
Text of Proposition 64
Trial Court Orders
Text of the CLRA
Code Civ. Proc. Â§382
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
Supreme Court denies review in McCann v. Lucky Mon...
New UCL "unlawful" prong decision: CPF Agency Corp...
"Trial Over Wal-Mart Lunch Breaks Begins"
New class action decision: Shapell Industries v. S...
Supreme Court might take up UCL "restitution"
Supreme Court gives itself more time to grant or d...
Petrini opinion now on Court of Appeal's website
First District, Division Five goes the other way o...
Off-topic post: Roberts confirmation hearings
California Law Blogs:
Bag and Baggage
California Appellate Report
California Election Law
California Labor & Employment Law
California Wage Law
Class Action Spot
Declarations and Exclusions
Employment Law Observer
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:
Appellate Law & Practice
The Common Scold
Connecticut Law Blog
Corp Law Blog
Delaware Law Office
Employee Relations Law and News
Ernie the Attorney
Have Opinion, Will Travel
IP Law Observer
Legal Blog Watch
the [non]billable hour
Point of Law
Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
The UCL Practitioner
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
AG Takes Default Against Trevor Law Group Shell Corporation
Today's Daily Journal reports that "Trevor-Law-Run Shell Loses to AG." According to the article, the Trevor Law Group used the shell corporation, Consumer Enforcement Watch Corp., to act as the plaintiff in the various 17200 actions it filed. The AG plans to prove up damages (call it "restitution") in excess of $1 million. The AG's suit against the Trevor Law Group principals remains pending. Daily Journal articles are accessible online by subscription only.
- posted by Kimberly @ 4:37 PM | Comments (0) |
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Comment on Frieman and UCL Class Actions
Yesterday's Daily Journal contained an article (available by paid subscription only) entitled "Court Insists That Class Actions Actually Be Beneficial," which discusses Frieman v. San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Feb. 24, 2004), mentioned in my post dated February 25.
I have to say that I am constantly surprised to see defendants so harshly criticize the concept of UCL class actions, as the article does. Certification of a UCL claim actually helps the defendants as much as the plaintiffs.
The most important benefit to the defendant is that certification ensures that the judgment will be binding on the class. A non-certified UCL action (arguably) does not, because it does not mandate the notice procedures that satisfy the due process rights of those affected by the judgment. This leaves the defendant exposed to multiple actions for the same misconduct. A certified UCL class action avoids this problem entirely.
Defendants also benefit because class certification requires an affected plaintiff with traditional standing, whose claims are "typical" of those of the class. A UCL representative action does not. You would expect to see defendants arguing that under Corbett, UCL claims should be required to be certified. Indeed, I have seen defendants make that precise argument in UCL representative actions brought by unaffected plaintiffs, hoping to knock out the entire case. Resisting certification does not make the UCL claim go away; all it does is make it easier for any plaintiff, affected or not, to bring suit.
In my opinion, it is always better to bring a UCL claim with an affected plaintiff and to seek class certification. That is not because I think broader remedies are available. Rather, it is to avoid the due process arguments many defendants raise in representative UCL actions. Also, class certification ensures better notice to the class, which means that more people will participate in the action and see their injuries rectified. Evidently, the plaintiffs in Frieman were focused on other goals--and saw their class certification motion denied as a result.
- posted by Kimberly @ 9:56 AM |
Monday, March 15, 2004
County Acting Within Scope of Police Powers Cannot Violate UCL
In San Diego County Veterinary Medical Ass'n. v. County of San Diego, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 15, 2004), the Court of Appeal held that a governmental body acting reasonably within the scope of its Constitutional police powers could not violate the UCL.
- posted by Kimberly @ 5:46 PM | Comments (0) |
Thursday, March 11, 2004
UCL and Secondary Liability?
An article in today's Daily Journal (accessible by subscription only) is entitled "California's Secondary-Liability Limits Appear Likely to Spread." Citing Emery v. Visa International Services Ass'n, 95 Cal.App.4th 952 (2002), the article asserts that "[s]ection 17200 does not extend to secondary liability claims," and that "[t]he vicarious liability limitation on consumer fraud statutes is not unique to California."
- posted by Kimberly @ 10:15 AM | Comments (0) |
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
UCL Does Not Apply to Securities Transactions
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal held that the UCL does not apply to securities transactions. Bowen v. Ziasun Technologies, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 8, 2004). The question was one of first impression in California.
- posted by Kimberly @ 9:41 AM | Comments (0) |
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Supreme Court Depublishes UCL Decision
Today the Supreme Court depublished Consumer Cause, Inc. v. National Vision, Inc., 111 Cal.App.4th 1069 (2003), in which the Court of Appeal interpreted the Cel-Tech "safe harbor" very broadly--some might say too broadly. The docket entry noting depublication can be viewed here.
- posted by Kimberly @ 4:28 PM | Comments (0) |