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
Off-topic post: Roberts confirmation hearings
Did Prop. 64 resuscitate "damages" as a UCL remedy?
Third District holds Prop. 64 retroactive in unpub...
Supreme Court extends its deadline to grant review...
Supreme Court grants review in Cohen v. Health Net
First District does not address Prop. 64 in Wilson...
New Ninth Circuit UCL decision: Arizona Cartridge ...
Additional Mervyn's and Branick briefs now online
With sympathy for our compatriots in Louisiana
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
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
First District, Division Five goes the other way on Prop. 64 retroactivity
In an opinion issued yesterday, most of which is unpublished, the First Appellate District, Division Five, parted company with its brethren in Division
The panel's (unpublished) discussion of UCL "restitution" is also interesting:
The essence of plaintiffs’ action is that PG&E charged ratepayers for services it failed to deliver, to wit, replacement of obsolete gas regulators. In other words, plaintiff ratepayers paid for something they did not get after PG&E deceptively obtained a rate increase from the PUC on the representation the increase was necessary to carry out the replacement project. Plaintiffs have alleged a valid claim for restitutionary relief: through a deceptive business practice, PG&E obtained from plaintiffs money in which they have an ownership interest.(Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted).) In other words, the UCL authorizes restitution to a plaintiff who paid for something that the defendant failed to deliver. The next question, which the opinion did not address, is how that something is valued for purposes of awarding restitution. In this case, the plaintiffs seem to be alleging that PG&E obtained a rate increase from the PUC by promising to replace old gas regulators, which it did not do. The restitution would simply be the amount of the rate increase, rather than, say, the value of the regulators.
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 8:55 AM
Which Division One case ruled on retroactivity? Are you referring to Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's? I believe that was a Division Four case. I was under the impression that Division One had not yet ruled on retroactivity.Post a Comment
# posted by Anonymous : 10:21 AM