Court Opinion

ID: 9796354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:56:10.077143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:09.872817
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, Acting C. J.
I concur in the majority opinion.
The majority holds that disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, *1167§ 17200 et seq.) when the action is brought by an individual entity on its own behalf. This conclusion logically follows from this court’s decision in Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718] (Kraus). That case held that disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy in a representative action under the UCL when the case is not brought as a class action. Kraus explained: “[T]he Legislature has not expressly authorized monetary relief other than restitution in UCL actions, but has authorized disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund in class actions. Although the Legislature is well aware of the distinction between class actions and representative actions, it has not done so for representative UCL actions.” (Id. at p. 137.) On this issue, I agreed with the majority in Kraus.
I wrote separately in Kraus, however, because I was troubled by dictum in that case suggesting “ ‘it may be appropriate ... to condition payment of restitution to [nonparty] beneficiaries of a representative UCL action on execution of acknowledgement that the payment is in full settlement of claims against the defendant.’ ” (Kraus, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 142 (conc, opn. of Kennard, J.) quoting maj. opn., id. atpp. 138-139.) But here the issue of conditioning payment of restitution to nonparty beneficiaries in a representative UCL action is not implicated because this case involves an individual entity, the agent of unsuccessful bidders for a lucrative contract to supply military equipment to the Republic of Korea. Because plaintiff here paid no money to defendant successful bidder, I agree with the majority that plaintiff is not entitled to restitution. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1149.)