# Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

> California Supreme Court · March 3, 2003 · 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 29

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796355

## Case

- **Full name:** KOREA SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 3, 2003
- **Citations:** 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 29; 29 Cal. 4th 1134; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 2291; 63 P.3d 937; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825; 2003 Cal. LEXIS 1301
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Werdegar
- **Judges:** Chen, Kennard, Moreno, Werdegar
- **Cited by:** 861 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796355

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- holding that an act is "independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796355. Public record. Not legal advice.