Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN

California Supreme Court Apr 27, 2005 No. S132433Published

Before: George

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a petition for review to determine whether plaintiffs in pending Unfair Competition Law actions may amend their complaints to add parties who satisfy the standing requirements of Proposition 64 and whether such amendments relate back for statute of limitations purposes.

Issues

If Proposition 64 standing limitations apply to pending Unfair Competition Law actions, may a plaintiff amend a complaint to substitute or add a party satisfying Business and Professions Code section 17204?
Does such an amended complaint relate back to the initial complaint for statute of limitations purposes?

Disposition. Petition for review granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: If the standing limitations of Proposition 64 apply to actions under the Unfair Competition Law that were pending on November 3, 2004, may a plaintiff amend his or her complaint”

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2005) 110 P.3d 1217 BRANICK

DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN.

No. S132433. Supreme Court of California.

April 27, 2005. Petition for review granted; issues limited

Petition for review GRANTED.

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: If the standing limitations of Proposition 64 apply to actions under the Unfair Competition Law that were pending on November 3, 2004, may a plaintiff amend his or her complaint to substitute in or add a party that satisfies standing requirements of Business and Professions Code section 17204, as amended, and does such an amended complaint relate back to the initial complaint for statute of limitations purposes?

GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN

AI Brief

DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief