The provisions of this title are not exclusive. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.
Nothing in this title shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General or any other person to bring class actions. Class actions by consumers brought under the specific provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1770) of this title shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing
with Section 1780); however, this shall not be construed so as to deprive a consumer of any statutory or common law right to bring a class action without resort to this title. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the consumer may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such law.
Notes of Decisions
Loeffler v. Target Corp., 324 P.3d 50 (Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1752.) On the other hand, the reach of the UCL is broad, but it is not without limit and may not be used to invade “safe harbors” provided by other statutes.”
Tamara Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020).
“Last, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing to enjoin all of Defendant Manufacturers’ prescription pet food products because Plaintiffs have not purchased every single type of prescription pet food available from Hill’s or Mars.”
Kraus v. Trinity Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 999 P.2d 718 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 2× “" (Civ.Code, § 1752.) Finally, albeit somewhat less broadly, Code of Civil Procedure section 384 declares it "shall not be construed to abrogate any equitable cy pres remedy which may be available in any class action with regard to all or part of the residue.”
Hogya v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 3d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1752; italics added.) Since the Consumers Legal Remedies Act is clearly supplemental to remedies available under other statutory and case law (Vasquez v.”
Corbett v. Superior Court, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7911 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “They contrast the language in section 17204 of the UCL with that in Civil Code section 1752 of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).”
Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 48 Communications Reg. (P&F) 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“(Civ. Code, § 1752.) The cases upon which AT&T relied in making this argument in each of its demurrers were decided before the CLRA was amended to make clear that the CLRA did not limit the remedies available under other statutes.”
Consum. Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“(Civ. Code, § 1752.) 4. The Representations “Digital signal” Defendants did not violate any of the statutes with this representation, because it is true.”
Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 161 P.3d 1000 (Wash. 2007).
“In fact, class actions in consumer actions are so favored that the California state legislature also enacted an antiwaiver provision stating "[a]ny waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.”
Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wash. 2d 843 (Wash. 2007).
“In fact, class actions in consumer actions are so favored that the California State Legislature also enacted an antiwaiver provision stating, “[a]ny waiver by a con *863 sumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.”
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal. App. 4th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“) Civil Code section 1752 of the CLRA provides, “The provisions of this title are not exclusive.”
Klussman v. Cross Country Bank, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“(Civ. Code, § 1752.) 8 Restatement section 187 provides: “(1) The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement…”
Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
“California Civil Code § 1752 provides as follows: The provisions of this title are not exclusive.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.