Inline, Inc. v. Apace Moving Systems, Inc.

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 895·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 26·23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 356
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2005G031864California3,257 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aronson, J.

Inline, Inc. and RGB Systems, Inc. (collectively Inline) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment determining as a matter of law that Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (Shurgard), a self-storage facility, conducted a lien auction of stored goods in a commercially reasonable manner. Inline also challenges the court’s $20 ceiling on restitution against Apace Moving Systems, Inc. (Apace) for a warehouseman’s lien auction deemed commercially unreasonable after a bench trial. We affirm both aspects of the judgment. Specifically, in the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the restitution remedy authorized by the unfair competition law (UCL) in Business and Professions Code section 17203 (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified) does not include: (a) the reimbursement of money expended by a plaintiff to recover property from a third party, or (b) recovery of the fair market value of property wrongfully disposed of by the defendant.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from a series of litigation battles between Inline and Jack Gershfeld. According to Inline, Gershfeld concealed valuable assets through…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.