Opinion

Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

  • 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 29
  • 29 Cal. 4th 1134
  • 2003 Daily Journal DAR 2291
  • 63 P.3d 937
  • 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 3, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Werdegar
On the bench
Chen, Kennard, Moreno, Werdegar
Cited by
861 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.3%

holding that “disgorgement of profits allegedly obtained by means of an unfair business practice” is not “an authorized remedy under the UCL where the profits are neither money taken from a plaintiff nor funds in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that “disgorgement of profits allegedly obtained by means of an unfair business practice” is not “an authorized remedy under the UCL where the profits are neither money taken from a plaintiff nor funds in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest”
  • explaining that restitution involves the return of money "to those persons in interest from whom the property was taken," while disgorgement, though it may include restitution, is not limited to the return of monies actually taken (emphasis supplied)
  • explaining that penalty provisions, like § 226, cannot be enforced through § 17200, which permits a violation of another law to be actionable as an “unfair competitive practice” only if the remedy sought is equitable in nature
  • explaining that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs was not “restitutionary because plaintiff *1105 d[id] not have an ownership interest in the money it s[ought] to recover from defendant's”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.

I agree with the majority that a plaintiff, in order to state a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, need not plead that a defendant acted with the specific intent to interfere with the plaintiffs business expectancy, and with the reasoning leading to that conclusion. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1141, 1153-1166.) Under compulsion of Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ], from which I dissented, I further agree that nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy in an individual action under the unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1152.) Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.