Section 17535

Citation: Section 17535
Parent Document: Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 999 P.2d 718 (2000)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2000-06-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1159700/kraus-v-trinity-management-serv... ↗

Full Text

1,251 chars

In fact, all three of the statutes on which the majority relies for its core “inconsistency” rationale (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 137) provide that their remedies are cumulative and do not displace others. First, the UCL states unambiguously that, “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided, the remedies or penalties provided by [the UCL] are cumulative to each other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this state.” (§ 17205.)2 Second, as just discussed in detail, the CLRA sweepingly declares its *154provisions are “not exclusive” and are “in addition to any other procedures or remedies” in “any other law.” (Civ. Code, § 1752.) Finally, albeit somewhat less broadly, Code of Civil Procedure section 384 declares it “shall not be construed to abrogate any ■ equitable cy pres remedy which may be available in any class action with regard to all or part of the residue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 384, subd. 3 Thus, the majority’s attempt to justify its ipse dixit ban on UCL fluid recovery on the ground that the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure section 384 somehow displace a court’s traditional cy pres or “fluid recovery” authority in the UCL context simply cannot be reconciled with the plain language of those statutes.

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text