FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 23, 1998

CONTACT: Fred Hiestand or John H. Sullivan
PHONE: (916) 448-5100 (916) 443-4900

Civil Justice Association of California Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision

Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores
"Disappointed....but Highlights Misuse and Need for Reform"

"We are disappointed with the majority's ruling but believe that it nevertheless serves the purpose of highlighting the misuse of the state's Unfair Competition Act and the need for the Legislature to step in with some reforms," said Fred Hiestand, general counsel for the Civil Justice Association of California and author of the association's amicus brief in the case.

"Justice Janice Brown's dissent lays out the kind of legal mischief going on in these Unfair Competition Act cases where the law lets suits be filed over 'general disgruntlement' instead of real injuries. Justice Marvin Baxter describes, in his concurring opinion, the real due process problems in letting a private lawyer file and settle suits for other people who have not even been told what is going on.

"The Supreme Court is not finished with this issue," he said.

Last year the Legislature dealt with a part of the Unfair Competition Act problem when it overwhelmingly approved an Civil Justice Association of California-sponsored bill (Assembly Bill 1394 - Figueroa and Escutia) to block absurd "package size" lawsuits. Software makers across California had been hit with lawsuits demanding $1 million each because their retail packages were "too large" for the disks and printed instruction booklets they contained. Dozens of similar suits were also filed against toy, cosmetic, and soap manufacturers.

###


Home || About Us || Meet Our Staff || Membership || Email Us
BALANCE Newsletter || Links of Interest || Search this Site || Campaign Money
News Releases || Legislation || Did You Know? || Opinion Pieces || B&P 17200 || Quotes to Note
Letters to the Editor || Appellate Program || Research