https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery en-us Court abused discretion in refusing to allow an amendment to complaint. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/bivens-v-sanford-46.html Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:39:59 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/bivens-v-sanford-46.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/46/ Branick decision holds that amendment to substitute an affected plaintiff in cases filed prior to the passage of Proposition 64 is proper. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/branick-proposition-28.html Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:01:11 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/branick-proposition-28.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/28/ Latest decision with respect to retroactive effect of initiative passed by the Voters as Proposition 64. Holds that proposition 64 is retroactive to case filed prior to the enactment of the statute. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/mervyns-proposition-case-27.html Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:59:41 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/mervyns-proposition-case-27.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/27/ California published appellate decision holding that (1) All class members, not just the named plaintiff, must have been "injured in business and property" by the deception; (2) The "likelihood to deceive" standard no longer exists, because "by reason of" means that actual reliance on any deception must be proven; and that (3) Each class member must prove such actual reliance. The court itself acknowledges that its decision would decimate private UCL litigation, but decides that Prop. 64's language compels that result. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/pfizer-v-superior-court-galfano-24.html Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:54:12 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/pfizer-v-superior-court-galfano-24.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/24/