Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Caution
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 767·58 Cal. App. 4th 273·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 621·97 Daily Journal DAR 12328·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7647
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1997Docket Nos. H013638, H014028, H014384California7,764 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Plaintiff Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) appeals from judgments in favor of defendants Tata Sons Limited and its division Tata Consultancy Services (collectively Tata) and Hewlett-Packard Company (H-P). Tata appeals from an order denying its motion for attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated below, we affirm both judgments and the post-judgment order.

Procedural History

On October 4, 1993, CAPS filed a complaint for a preliminary and permanent injunction under Business and Professions Code section 17200. The first cause of action alleged Tata had committed acts of unfair competition by engaging in statutorily prohibited conduct and unfair practices. The second cause of action alleged that H-P was aware of Tata’s unlawful and unfair business practices and was liable for conspiring with Tata to violate California law.

After three amended complaints were filed, H-P’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the court. The court found CAPS had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to H-P’s knowledge of or participation in the alleged unlawful practices. The remaining action proceeded to a nonjury trial, after which the court rendered a…

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.

Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co. · Court of Appeal of California · 1997 | Caselegis