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

1,143 chars

One Court of Appeal has remarked that it is "significant that the Legislature chose to use the word `restore' in labeling that which an offending defendant may be ordered to do" (Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325, 338, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 55), as the choice indicates sections 17203 and 17535 do not contemplate purely punitive monetary sanctions. (See generally Day, supra, at pp. 338-339, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 55.) Even so, the same court recognized that these statutes and the cases construing them "allow[ ] for a fluid recovery, as opposed to a restoration to identified individuals or classes, [if] the amount being restored [is] objectively measurable as that amount which the defendant would not have received but for the unfairly competitive practice." (Id. at p. 339, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 55, italics added; Levi Strauss, supra, 41 Cal.3d 460, 224 Cal.Rptr. 605, 715 P.2d 564; Parkmerced, supra, 198 Cal. App.3d 683, 244 Cal.Rptr. 22.) The majority does not dispute that the amounts the trial court ordered disgorged in this case are objectively measurable as those that defendants would not have received but for their unfair practices.

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text