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

1,386 chars

Applying both Market St. Ry. Co., supra, 28 Cal.2d 363, 171 P.2d 875, and Levi Strauss, supra, 41 Cal.3d 460, 224 Cal. Rptr. 605, 715 P.2d 564, the Court of Appeal in Powers, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 330, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 34, not a class action, held that the doctrine of fluid recovery permits a trial court in a UCL action to require disgorgement of unfair competition proceeds to a fund benefiting "an interested third party," there a governmental entity funding moderate-income housing. (Id. at pp. 339-344, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 34.) The court found "nothing in logic or in law supporting a theory that a wrongdoer should be entitled to retain its illegal profits simply because there is no cognizable direct victim" (id. at p. 341, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 34) and observed section 17203 "expressly entitles a court to take such actions as may be necessary to prevent the use by any person of any unfair business practice" (Powers, supra, at p. 340, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 34). Noting the deterrence rationale this court has discerned to underlie section 17203, the court, after reviewing fluid recovery cases, explained they "did not turn on the ability to name specific persons as victims, but on the equities of preventing the defendant from benefiting from the illegal transaction and of reversing the harm of *514 the wrongful act to the greatest extent possible." (Powers, supra, at p. 343, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 34.)

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text