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

1,331 chars

As noted at the outset, the majority holds that defendants have not been denied due process (maj. opn, ante, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d at p. 488, 999 P.2d at p. 721) and that the remedial order in this case, understood as foreclosing the possibility of double recovery by accommodating any evidence of prior payment, does not raise due process concerns (id. at pp. 501-502, 999 P.2d at pp. 733-734). I agree. In reaching these conclusions, however, the majority repeatedly alludes to "the due process concerns of defendants" (maj. opn., ante, at p. 501, 999 P.2d at p. 733; see also id. at pp. 488, 490, 501-502, 999 P.2d at pp. 721, 723, 733-734), at one point opining in dictum that "allowing fluid recovery in representative UCL actions might implicate the due process concerns raised by defendants here and noted by the Court of Appeal in Bronco Wine Co. [v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms ], supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at page 717[ 262 Cal.Rptr. 899]" (maj. opn., ante, at p. 500, 999 P.2d at p. 732). As the majority explains, defendants have argued that UCL fluid recovery (both in the trial court's order in this case and generally) creates a risk of "multiple suits and duplicative liability," adequate protections against which are, according to defendants, "available only in a class action." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 501, 999 P.2d at p. 733.)

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text