Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-A statement of bias under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.1, 170.3, was properly stricken as untimely under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.4, subd. (b), and thus the judge's subsequent orders were valid; [2]-Removing retained criminal defense counsel over defendant's objections did not violate the right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const., 6th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 15, and was within the trial court's authority under Cal. Const., art. I, § 29, and Pen. Code, §§ 987.05, 1050, because there was ample reason for the court to conclude that counsel was unprepared and was not providing effective representation; [3]-Defense counsel's misconduct in seeking to disqualify the judge as a delaying tactic and without evidentiary support, contrary to Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, warranted referral to the State Bar under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.7, subd. (a)(2).

Outcome

Writ petition denied.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff appealed an order of the California Court of Appeal that affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action against defendants alleging violations of the Unfair Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000 et seq. AB 168 Employers: salary information and unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17209.

Overview

Plaintiff wholesaler brought suit against defendants alleging Unfair Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000 et seq., violations occurred when defendant seller gave defendant wholesalers discounts not offered to plaintiff or the market generally. Plaintiff also alleged unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17209, violations and sought restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 for monies plaintiff lost and profits defendants received resulting from their unfair competition acts. The trial court granted defendant seller's demurrer to dismiss plaintiff's suit and the appeals court affirmed. The state supreme court reversed, holding that the competition referred to under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045 was not limited to competition among sellers but also included economic competition among buyers. Additionally, the court held that plaintiff could seek recovery under § 17203 without first seeking an injunction against future acts of unfair competition.

Outcome

In reversing the lower courts, the appellate court held that competition for purposes of recovery under the Uniform Practices Act included not only competition among sellers but also among buyers. The court also held that seeking injunction relief was not a prerequisite for recovery under the unfair competition law.