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

949 chars

The majority asserts that "[f]luid recovery in class actions was not authorized in this state until 1981" (maj. opn., ante, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 496, 999 P.2d at p. 728, citing Bruno v. Superior Court (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 120, 179 Cal.Rptr. 342), but even if correct that is beside the point, where the issue is the validity of fluid recovery in wow, class UCL actions. As discussed, "fluid recovery" is simply cy pres in the context of a modern class action (Levi Strauss, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 472, 224 Cal.Rptr. 605, 715 P.2d 564) and, as we long have recognized, California courts' authority to utilize cy près was included "in the general devolution upon the Courts of this State of all judicial power...." (Estate of Hinckley, supra, 58 Cal. at p. 512.) Thus, California courts have utilized the common law cy près doctrine for over a century and have for many decades fashioned "fluid" remedies, both in and out of the class action context.

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text