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:
Apple Computer sues bloggers
New UCL decision: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior...
Rehearing denied in Benson v. Kwikset Corp.
Publication denied in Consumer Advocates v. Daimle...
Rehearing denied in Californians for Disability Ri...
Blogosphere comment on the Class Action "Fairness"...
"Plaintiff Lawyers Hunt for Partners:
"Wal-Mart Foes Join in Fight Over Court Files"
A Prop. 64 hypothetical
"Will Blogs Kill the Law Review Case Comment?"
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
Friday, March 04, 2005
Three new trial court orders
I've updated my list of Prop. 64 orders to include these three, two of which (Andres and Zamani) hold that Prop. 64 does NOT apply to pending cases:
- Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., San Diego County Superior Court case no. GIC837068, Judge Luis R. Vargas (minute order dated 01/07/05)
- Andres v. Cross Link, Inc. dba Westar Marine Services, San Francisco Superior Court case no. CGC-04-431220, Judge Ronald E. Quidachay (order filed 02/15/05)
- Zamani v. Malae, Santa Clara County Superior Court case no. 1-02-CV806141, Judge Kevin E. McKenney (order dated 02/22/05)
Judge Kevin McKenney dealt with the retroactivity question by simply stating that there were differences in the courts of appeal in that the First District had held it was not retroactive and the Second and Fourth Districts had held otherwise, but neither decision was binding on him and that unless and until the Sixth District issued a ruling directing otherwise he would continue to apply Prop. 64 non-retroactively.I am unaware of any Sixth District pending appeals in which the Prop. 64 retroactivity question has been raised.
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 9:12 AM
Comments:
It would be reversible error for Judge McKenney to automatically follow any Sixth Circuit published appellate decision on the Proposition 64 retroactivity issue. That is because appellate decisions have the same status as binding authority (if there is no split of authority) of persuasive authority (if, as here, there is a split) regardless of which district ruled which way or where the trial court is. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 57 Cal. 2d 450, 456 (1962); Walsh v. West Valley Mission Comm. College Dist., 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542, n. 4. Although the trial judge can follow the decision he prefers, it had better be for wel-articulated reasons and not just because he thinks he has to because it's from his district.
Post a Comment
# posted by Anonymous : 9:53 AM