Stassinos

Palmer v. Stassinos

Good Law

419 F. Supp. 2d 1151·2005 WL 3845127·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41030

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 8, 2005C-04-03026-RMW, C-04-03027RMW, C-04-03237-RMWCalifornia2,409 words

Opinion

Whyte, J.

ORDER CLARIFYING DECEMBER 14, 2004, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants in the three cases captioned above seek reconsideration of this court’s December 14, 2004, consolidated order on two grounds: (1) the enactment of Proposition 64 applies retroactively to deprive Palmer of all standing to sue under California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”); (2) the statutory remedies provided in Cal. Civil Code § 1719 are not “mandatory and exclusive.” On this second ground, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s determination that pre-judgment interest is not permitted in addition to statutory remedies and that those statutory remedies are not intended to do away with remedies not addressed by the parties,, in particular, contractual remedies, attorney’s fees, and post-judgment interest.

I. ANALYSIS

A. Clarification

1. “Exclusive and Mandatory” Remedy

As set forth in its December 14, 2004, order, the court held that double recovery was prohibited and that the collection of both the statutory damages provided under § 1719 and pre-judgment interest would result in double recovery against…

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.