The UCL Practitioner
Monday, March 28, 2005
 
Review sought in Consumer Advocates v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
On March 14, a petition for review was filed with the California Supreme Court in Consumer Advocates v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., case no. S131861. I haven't seen the petition, but it probably doesn't raise Prop. 64. As you might recall, the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, issued an unpublished opinion on January 31st that surprised everyone by not reaching the Prop. 64 retroactivity issue. As a result, the review petition likely addresses the other UCL-related points discussed in the unpublished opinion, which had to do with adequacy of legal remedies and equitable abstension—neither of which the opinion addressed in a particularly unique way. The multiple publication requests are still pending, but the Fourth District denied those requests, and they are opposed by the California Attorney General and the California District Attorneys' Association.
Comments:
We file our writ for Supreme Court review tomorrow in Bivens v. Corel Corp. It includes our arguments against retroactivity.

Scott McMillan
http://www.mcmillanlaw.us
 
Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger


© 2003-2005 by Kimberly A. Kralowec