SACRAMENTO Ü On Tuesday, March 7 the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases dealing with the state's controversial Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq). The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) has filed amicus briefs in both cases - Kraus v. Trinity Management Company and Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Company.

Fred Hiestand, CJAC general counsel and Barbara Wheeler, CJAC vice president-legislation, will be available for comment before and after Tuesday's hearing at the California Supreme Court Building, 303 Second Street, South Tower, 8th Floor, San Francisco. These two cases, along with one other, are scheduled to be heard beginning at 9:00 a.m.

The law in question has been the subject of both litigation and legislation over the past five years, with the Civil Justice Association of California playing a prominent role in each forum. CJAC is currently sponsoring a bill in the California Legislature (AB 2186 Ü Robert Pacheco) to end abuse of the law by private attorneys.

The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) was originally intended as a tool to be used by public prosecutors to stop business practices that harm businesses as well as consumers of goods and services. Unfortunately, the statute is subject to misuse and abuse due to ambiguities in its language. Misuses have included allowing companies and individuals to be sued over the same issue more than once, and allowing suits after the statute of limitations has expired.

The following are summaries of the cases before the high court:

Kraus v. Trinity Management demonstrates how the UCL unfairly allows a "non-class" action to be brought without certification, including providing notice of a class action. In this case, four tenants sued a landlord for collecting illegal deposits. They named themselves and 4,500 current and former tenants in the suit; however, the lawsuit was never officially certified as a "class action." The court found for the four plaintiffs and awarded almost $1 million in restitution. Because no "class" was ever certified, the other 4,500 tenants can now sue the same landlord over the same issue.

Cortez v. Purolator illustrates the potential of using the UCL to evade the statute of limitations' deadline for filing a lawsuit. Additionally, it poses the question of the difference between damages and restitution as types of recovery. Plaintiff Cortez sued her former employer alleging it violated the Labor Code in the manner in which it calculated employees' wages and in its calculation of overtime pay. In addition to her individual claim, Cortez prosecuted a UCL claim seeking restitution of the overtime wages withheld from approximately 175 Purolator employees, even though the statute of limitations for these employees' claims had expired. Additionally, these former employees were not provided notice that their claims were being prosecuted.