Section 17203

Citation: Section 17203
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

1,447 chars

ACLI argues that the language and history of section 17203 suggest that the Legislature did not intend to permit orders directing disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund or actions seeking restitution to any person other than a direct victim of unfair competition.[14] It notes that traditionally only injunctive relief was available in a UCL action. Before the Legislature added express power to order restitution to the false advertising law (§ 17500 et seq.) in a 1972 amendment to section 17535 (Stats.1972, ch. 244, § 1, p. 494) and to the UCL in 1976, restitution had been judicially approved as a proper exercise of the equitable power granted by section 17535[15] in People v. Superior Court [Jayhill)] (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 107 *496 Cal.Rptr. 192, 507 P.2d 1400 (Jayhill), an action brought by the Attorney General. When the Jayhill action was initiated, section 17535 did not expressly authorize an order for restitution. We held nonetheless that "a court of equity may exercise the full range of its inherent powers in order to accomplish complete justice between the parties, restoring if necessary the status quo ante as nearly as may be achieved." (Jayhill, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 286, 107 Cal.Rptr. 192, 507 P.2d 1400.) We did not consider whether disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund was authorized. We held only that the court had the power to order defendants to make or offer to make restitution to defrauded customers. (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text