We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 16

Unfair Competition Law cases still occupy numerous spaces on the California Supreme Court's docket
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 4 2010

In November 2004, the voters of California passed Proposition 64, which was intended to rein in certain abuses in and bring some clarity to the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. (“the UCL”


"Principal place of business" defined by Supreme Court in Hertz Corp vs. Melinda Friend
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 23 2010

In a decision closely watched by multi-state corporations, including those in the insurance industry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a company’s “principal place of business” is where “a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”


Attorney fee award is appropriate based on successful forum non conveniens motion
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2010

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently decided a novel fee question


Assignee may pursue claim for indemnification for unreimbursed counsel fees
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 1 2011

In Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v Ralph M. Parson Service Co., 2011 DJDAR 1193 (2011), the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided an interesting contract indemnity case dealing with a fee award


California Supreme Court again confirms a penalty is not restitution under the UCL
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • November 21 2010

Recently, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Company), wherein the Court confirmed that the only monetary remedy available under the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200 (the “UCL”) is restitution, and that a claim for treble damages is not restitution, nor is the nature of restitution comparable to a penalty


Finding that an anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous justifies fee award
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2010

In Baharian-Mehr v. Glenn Smith, et. al. 2010 DJDAR 15946 (2010) the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal, held that the special motion to strike procedure set forth in CCP 425.16 was not applicable to a business dispute


There can only be one prevailing party under Civil Code Section 1717
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • June 6 2012

In Frog Creek Partners LLC v. Vance Brown Inc., 2012 DJDAR 6905 (2012), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District decided a novel prevailing party case under Civil Code Section 1717


We may need a lawyer for that - typical legal needs for a startup
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2012

At some point when an idea grows into a business opportunity you will need a lawyer


Hiring a lawyer for your startup - big firm or small firm?
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • July 13 2012

As we continue our startup blog series, How to Select New Counsel and Manage Legal Fees, we focus on law firm size in the process of hiring an attorney


Award of attorney fees under the automobile sale finance act upheld by court of appeal
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2010

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., D054369 (July 15, 2010), the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial court’s judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff class representative under the Automobile Sale Finance Act (“ASFA”), and denied costs to defendant in its claim under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998