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:
Prop. 64 oral argument tomorrow in Sacramento
Supreme Court gives itself more time to grant or d...
Golden State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law ...
More on California v. Altus Finance, S.A.
New Supreme Court UCL opinion: California v. Altus...
Is Prop. 64 an unconstitutional bill of attainder?
"What RSS can do for lawyers"
"The Baby and the Bathwater"
Supreme Court grants review in another Prop. 64 re...
In appellate advocacy, where do you draw the line?
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, August 26, 2005
Report on this morning's Prop. 64 oral argument and some thoughts on retroactivity
My sincere and eternal thanks to the reader who attended this morning's oral argument in the Petrini Van & Storage case, and provided this detailed summary:
Petrini Van & Storage v. Superior Court,Here are my initial impressions based wholly on the above summary. I'm not sure that the language of Prop. 64 that Justice Sims identified means the electorate intended that the amendments apply to pending cases. Defendants have relied on certain words in Proposition 64’s preamble to support an inference of retroactivity, including these:
Third Appellate District, case no. C049042
Oral argument on Friday, August 26, 2005, 9:30 a.m.
Panel: Justices Richard Sims, Rod Davis, Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Attorneys: Stephen C. Tedesco, Littler Mendelson, San Francisco argued for Petitioner. Kimberley Owens appeared only for Petitioner. Matthew J. Gauger, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Sacramento, argued for Real Party in Interest.
Writ from Sacramento Superior Court, Judge Loren McMaster's denial of defendant Petrini Van and Storage's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Summary of Oral Argument:
Justice Sims expressed awareness that whomever loses the decision by the Third District Court would petition for review before the Supreme Court, which counsel for petitioner acknowledged.
The sole issue addressed was whether Prop. 64 was applicable to pending cases. The focus was on whether it affected a vested right. Petitioner contended that the right to bring a representative action was purely statutory, and did not exist at common law. Tedesco contended that the substantive rights in this action, the prevailing wage laws, were not affected by Prop. 64.
Each of the three Justices suggested that the matter might be returned to the trial court to cure the standing defect by allowing the Union or a plaintiff with a cognizable injury to substitute in as plaintiff. Tedesco said that is a different lawsuit, the public withdrew this plaintiff's right to proceed with this suit by enacting Prop. 64.
Gauger, attorney for real party plaintiff/respondent Munoz, contended that the trial court's tentative ruling was well reasoned. Munoz had arranged his affairs to pursue a Business & Professions Code section 17200 suit. Justice Cantil questioned how an uninjured plaintiff could "arrange his affairs". Gauger responded that he did so by deciding to file individually, as a representative of the public, rather than as the carpenter's union, to make sure that the carpenters are paid the prevailing wage. He asked that the stay be lifted, and Munoz be permitted leave to amend, or alternatively, that another individual replace Munoz as the plaintiff.
Justice Sims interjected that everyone in the lawsuit has a substantive right at stake. He stated that this was "just a procedural standing issue". It was very hard for him to believe that the people of California cannot change standing in the middle of a suit. He read portions of Prop. 64, which referred to cases being "prosecuted", stating he understood the use of the word "prosecuted" to meant that the voters intended to change standing midstream. If Prop. 64 was only intended to apply in the future, the drafters would not have to say "and prosecuted", just writing "filed" would be enough.
Justice Davis inquired at the end of the argument, whether the case could be remanded to secure the cooperation of a public prosecutor. Tedesco responded that the prosecutor has not filed, and the right to bring a suit, includes the right not to sue.
Conclusion:
It appears that the Third District will find that Prop. 64 is procedural only, and does not affect substantive rights, and it was written to reflect an intent that it be applied to pending cases. The Court may reverse and remand, to permit plaintiff leave to amend.
- “It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act to eliminate frivolous unfair competition lawsuits ….” Prop. 64, §1(d) (emphasis added).
- “It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act that only the California Attorney General and local public officials be authorized to file and prosecute actions on behalf of the general public.” Id. §1(f) (emphasis added).
- “Frivolous unfair competition lawsuits clog our courts and cost taxpayers.” Id. §1(c) (emphasis added).
- “It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act to prohibit private attorneys from filing lawsuits for unfair competition where they have no client who has been injured in fact under the standing requirements of the United States Constitution.” Prop. 64, §1(e) (emphasis added).
- “This measure prohibits any person, other than the Attorney General, from bringing a lawsuit for unfair competition unless the person has suffered injury and lost money or property.” Prop. 64, Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (emphasis added).
- Proposition 64 “[a]llows only the Attorney General, district attorneys, and other public officials to file lawsuits on behalf of the People of the State of California to enforce California’s unfair competition law.” Prop. 64, Argument in Favor (emphasis added).
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 1:27 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment