Class Action

Oral argument preview: County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield Co.)

Posted on May 05, 2010
This morning at 9:00 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield Co.), no. S163681. This case addresses whether governmental entities may hire outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis...

Oral argument report: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.

Posted on May 04, 2010
On Monday, May 3, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. The seven-Justice court included three pro tem members. Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo of the First Appellate District, Division Four, sat in for...

Oral argument preview: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.

Posted on May 03, 2010
This afternoon at 1:30 p.m., the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. In that case, the question is whether an intermediate purchaser (of, for example, price-fixed goods) may recover damages under the Cartwright...

Spring 2010 issue of Competition

Posted on April 30, 2010
The Spring 2010 issue of Competition, the journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, is now out. It has several articles of interest: "Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Company: More Confusion Regarding...

To access this complete feed in the blog feed reader login or register for free.

Recent Court of Appeal opinions of interest

Posted on April 29, 2010
Several new decisions of interest were handed down during my blogging hiatus (and before Dukes v. Wal-Mart): Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 15, 2010; pub. ord. Apr. 6, 2010) (Second Appellate District, Division Five) (affirming...

Thoughts on one aspect of Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Posted on April 28, 2010
The opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart really is oppressively long for someone with a busy practice! I'm still only through Part II of the discussion, entitled "Standards for Class Certification Under Rule 23" (slip op. at 6151-83). Still, that section...

Blogosphere comment on Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Posted on April 28, 2010
Attorney Stephen G. Pearl of The California Wage and Hour Law Blog has had more time to read Dukes v. Wal-Mart than I have. He has three detailed posts on the opinion. Also, a post at a Forbes.com blog called...

Supreme Court denies review in two more post-Tobacco II cases

Posted on April 27, 2010
I am still combing through the lengthy Wal-Mart opinion. Meanwhile, in other new of note, during its conference on April 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review in two more of the nine post-Tobacco II cases: Weinstat v. Dentsply...

Two Supreme Court cases set for oral argument next week: Clayworth v. Pfizer and County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (ARCO)

Posted on April 26, 2010
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in two of the cases I've been following, Clayworth v. Pfizer and County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (ARCO). I'm going to try to attend both and provide reports here. Monday, May...

BREAKING NEWS:Ninth Circuit hands down Dukes v. Wal-Mart opinion this morning

Posted on April 26, 2010
The Ninth Circuit has just handed down its long-awaited opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (Apr. 26, 2010). I have not yet read the opinion, but the first paragraph indicates that the class...

"Memoirs of a Blogger"

Posted on April 24, 2010
Attorney Mark Herrmann, who recently retired from co-authoring the Drug and Device Law Blog, had this article in the Winter 2010 issue of Litigation, the magazine of the ABA's Litigation Section. It's an interesting read full of insights about what...

Blog hiatus

Posted on April 05, 2010
The blog will be on hiatus for a couple of weeks. Please continue to contact me about working together on cases, new decisions, or anything else. I can be reached by email (uclpractitioner@gmail.com) or phone (415-546-6800).

Supreme Court denies review and depublication in Vioxx Class Cases

Posted on April 01, 2010
On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court denied review and depublication in In re Vioxx Class Cases, no. S179699. Justice Chin was recused and did not participate. Vioxx is one of the nine Court of Appeal cases to date...

State Bar's new antitrust and UCL treatise now available

Posted on March 29, 2010
The new edition of California State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law (LexisNexis 2009), published by the State Bar's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, is now available and can be ordered here. It is a thick, hardbound book, with a...

One-year anniversary of en banc argument in

Posted on March 24, 2010
One year ago today, an eleven-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument on rehearing in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., nos. 04-16688 & 04-16720. In 2007, a three-judge panel (with one judge dissenting) affirmed the trial court's order granting....

More materials from Weinstat v. Dentsply

Posted on March 23, 2010
Here are more materials from Weinstat v. Dentsply, no. S180179: Letter Supporting Review of American Honda Motor Co. (dated 03/12/10) Reply to Answer to Petition for Review (filed 03/12/10) Letter Supporting Review of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al...

Orange County District Attorney's UCL action against Toyota

Posted on March 22, 2010
You've probably read about the UCL public prosecutor action filed by the Orange County District Attorney's office against Toyota. Here is a copy of the complaint (also available at the OCDA's website). The DA is jointly represented by his own...

Tobacco II attorneys receive CLAY Awards

Posted on March 17, 2010
Congratulations to Sharon Arkin, Tom Haklar, Kevin Calcagnie and Mark Robinson on being named 2010 California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year. They are the team who "pulled out a ground-breaking victory in May at the California Supreme Court" in Tobacco...

Recent UCL "unfair" prong case: Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Association

Posted on March 16, 2010
In Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Association, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Feb. 24, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) upheld a judgment entered after the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's UCL claim was sustained without leave...

More on Hertz Corp. v. Friend and diversity jursidiction under CAFA

Posted on March 15, 2010
The Supreme Court's opinion in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 599 U.S. ___ (Feb. 23, 2010), does not mention the Class Action Fairness Act by name, although the action was removed to federal court under CAFA, and the remand order reached...

Two upcoming MCLE programs of interest

Posted on March 12, 2010
Here are two upcoming MCLE programs that sound really good. Both are in San Francisco: Outstanding Trial Work: Best Practices as Seen from the Bench, Recorder Roundtable, Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 9:00-11:00 a.m. (Commonwealth Club, San Francisco), featuring: Hon...

Two votes for review in Davis v. FMCC

Posted on March 11, 2010
Which, unfortunately, is not enough. Yesterday the Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co., no. S179049. Justices Kennard and Werdegar voted to grant review. We'll have to go a little longer without knowing...

Petition for review and other documents from Weinstat v. Dentsply

Posted on March 10, 2010
I have obtained copies of the following materials from Weinstat v. Dentsply Int'l, nos. A116248 and S180179: Petition for Rehearing in Court of Appeal (filed 01/22/10; denied 01/26/10) Petition for Review (filed 02/11/10) Depublication Request of American Financial Services Association...

Oral argument set in attorney advertising case: Simpson Strong-Tie v. Gore

Posted on March 09, 2010
Last week, the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, no. S164174. The argument will take place on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles. These are the issues on review: (1) Which...

Nine post-Tobacco II opinions

Posted on March 08, 2010
In preparation for our Rutter Group seminar last week, Will Stern and I compiled this list of the nine Court of Appeal opinions substantively construing Tobacco II: Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (2009) (no...

Thanks for coming!

Posted on March 05, 2010
Thanks to all who attended the Rutter Group seminar on 17200 practice this week. I hope you found it useful. I certainly did. One of the attendees asked me about my new website, www.kraloweclaw.com. It is under construction. For now,...

Pfizer v. Superior Court (Galfano) now published

Posted on March 03, 2010
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal published its opinion in Pfizer v. Superior Court (Galfano), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Feb. 25, 2010; pub. ord. Mar. 2, 2010), which originally was handed down as an unpublished opinion last week. The opinion grants a...

Announcing The Kralowec Law Group

Posted on March 01, 2010
I am pleased to announce the formation of my new class action law firm, The Kralowec Law Group, as of March 1, 2010. My updated contact information is to the left and below. I will continue to represent plaintiffs in...

Still time to register for the Rutter Group 17200 Program March 1 and 3

Posted on February 26, 2010
It's not too late to register for the Rutter Group's annual UCL program, which will take place this coming Monday, March 1 in San Francisco and Wednesday, March 3 in Los Angeles (6:00-9:15 p.m.). I will be a speaker, along...

Supreme Court takes up class certification appellate issue: Baycol Cases I and II

Posted on February 24, 2010
Last Thursday, February 18, 2010, the Supreme Court granted review in Baycol Cases I and II, no. S178320. This is the summary of the issue on review: Did the "death knell doctrine" require plaintiff to immediately appeal the sustaining of...

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.