The UCL Practitioner
Monday, January 10, 2005
Yet another pro-plaintiff Prop. 64 order: Munoz v. Petrini Van & Storage, Inc.
Here is another order on the Prop. 64 retroactivity issue:

This one is also quite detailed, and holds that Prop. 64 may not be applied to pending cases. Like the Goodwin order, this order also invites immediate appellate review under Code of Civil Procedure section 166.1. (I searched for a writ petition in the Goodwin case, and couldn't find one, although it's been a month since that order was issued.)

In addition, I'm told that the court rejected (without analysis) a Prop. 64 retroactivity argument in:
UPDATE:The San Mateo County Superior Court keeps its tentative rulings available online for only about a week, so I've archived the Austria tentative ruling here.
This decision contains a fascinating observation that I have not seen elsewhere. The Court noted that a common law cause of action for unfair competition existed prior to the UCL. I'm pained that this didn't occur to me while I was drafting an opposition to a Prop. 64 motion.

While it was almost a throw-away comment, this idea could be teased out into something with teeth. I hope that it gets presented to an appellate court before this issue is a done deal.
Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger

© 2003-2005 by Kimberly A. Kralowec