Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

16 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The Hidden Cost of PPP Loans: U.S. Businesses Receiving Loans May Risk Civil Suits

    Bryan Cave Leighton PaisnerRobert HoffmanMay 8, 2020

    8. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)9.People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Fremont Life Ins. Co., 104 Cal. App. 4th 508, 514-17 (2002).10.Peterson v. Cellco P’ship 164 Cal. App. 4th 1583, 1590 (2008); see also, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. 11.Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,29 Cal.4th 1134, 1148 (2003).12.Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 505, 512 (2017).13.CompareCapitol West Appraisals LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.,467 Fed.Appx. 738, 740 (9th Cir. 2012) to Korea Supply,29 Cal.4th at 1154.14.Lyles v. Sangadeo-Patel, 255 Cal. App. 4th 759, 769 (2014) (internal citations omitted).15.See First Nationwide Savings v. Perry, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1657, 1662 (1992) (“we shall conclude that FNS’s complaint can be amended to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment.”); Hirsch v. Bank of America, 107 Cal. App. 4th 708, 722 (2003) (finding the plaintiffs “stated a valid cause of action for unjust enrichment”).

  2. New California Class Action Targeting Ivanka Trump’s Fashion Line Tests the Limits of California’s Unfair Competition Law

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPKent SchmidtMarch 30, 2017

    This is what separates California from other jurisdictions which do not allow litigants to cite a violation of a law as a basis for a civil claim unless there is a private right of action. The best example of this is Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1148 (2003), in which a government contractor claimed that its competitor obtained a lucrative defense contract from a foreign government by engaging in bribery in violation for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). There is no private right of action under the FCPA.

  3. California Supreme Court Rejects Claim by Second-Lowest Bidders on Public Works Contracts that Low Bidder Interfered with a Prospective Economic Advantage

    Nossaman LLPJill JaffeMarch 15, 2017

    (Id. at p. 5 [citing Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1164-1165.) The Supreme Court examined cases that focused on the first element of the tort, and particularly those decisions where a court found that “either the economic relationship with the third party is too attenuated or the probability of economic benefit too speculative.”

  4. Federal Court Decertifies "Natural" Damages Class Action- Naturally

    Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.Sean P. WajertNovember 11, 2014

    Specifically, the type of damages that Brazil's model sought to prove was restitution, a remedy whose purpose is to restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest. Kor. Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 , 1149 , 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 29, 63 P.3d 937 (2003). The UCL, FAL, and CLRA - statutes relied on by plaintiff -- authorize California trial courts to grant restitution to private litigants.

  5. California Court of Appeal Holds That Restitution Is Available Under The Unfair Competition Law Where Plaintiff Made No Direct Payments To The Defendants

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPNovember 14, 2007

    The California Court of Appeal has held that Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003), did not preclude an award of restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to plaintiff by defendant Microsoft even though plaintiff paid a retailer, not Microsoft, for the product.Plaintiff asserted that he had been misled by statements on Microsoft’s packaging into purchasing a Microsoft product.

  6. California Courts Bar Disgorgement of Profits Remedy In Unfair Competion Actions By Private Parties

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMay 3, 2006

    In Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116 (2000), however, the California Supreme Court held that fluid recovery was not available to obtain disgorgement in the now defunct UCL nonclass representative actions.2 Three years later, the same court held that disgorgement was not an available remedy in UCL individual actions and the only monetary relief available to a private plaintiff was restitution of funds in which the plaintiff had a prior ownership interest. Korea Supply v. Lockheed Martin, 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003).The Korea Supply decision, however, expressly left open the issue of whether nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits would be permitted in UCL class actions. 29 Cal. 4th at 1152, n. 6. Three recent decisions by three different California Courts of Appeal have now held that disgorgement is not available in UCL class actions, and given a narrow interpretation of what constitutes restitution for purposes of the UCL.

  7. Restitution Under the UCL Is Not Damages

    CDF Labor Law LLPAlison TsaoJune 24, 2021

    Neither are attorneys’ fees or punitive damages. Relying on the California Supreme Court decision in Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003), the Lee Court explained that non-restitutionary disgorgement of profits is not available under the UCL. That is, “profits that are neither money the defendant took from the plaintiff nor funds to which the plaintiff has an ownership interest – is not an authorized remedy under the UCL.” Quantifiable sums, such as earned but unpaid wages, may constitute restitution because employees have a vested interest in earned wages.

  8. Competitor Recovers Damages From FCPA Violator In Post-Enforcement Civil Litigation

    Lowenstein Sandler LLPMay 14, 2021

    9 Ericsson, “Ericsson announces settlement with impact in second quarter 2021,” Press Release (May 12, 2021), https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2021/5/ericsson-announces-settlement-with-impact-in-second-quarter-2021.10See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2003).11See id. at 942, 954.12See “Innospec Inc. Pleads Guilty to FCPA Charges and Defrauding the United Nations; Admits to Violating the U.S. Embargo Against Cuba,” Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs Press Release (Mar. 18, 2011), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/innospec-inc-pleads-guilty-fcpa-charges-and-defrauding-united-nations-admits-violating-us.13See NewMarket Corp. v. Innospec Inc., No. 10‐cv‐00503 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2010) (Complaint).

  9. California Court Of Appeal Concludes There Is No Private Right Of Action Under The State’s Auto-Renewal Law

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPRobert MilliganOctober 28, 2020

    The Court also took judicial notice of the ARL’s legislative history, and observed that the bill’s author had suggested enforcement through the UCL. See also Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1143 (2003) (“Section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.”).For a more detailed overview of the ARL’s provisions, click here.“Standing to sue for unfair competition requires actual injury and causation”Citing Section 17204, the Court reiterated that the UCL provisions contain an express standing requirement; an action may be brought only “by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” See Hall v. Time, Inc., 158 Cal. App. 4th 847, 849 (2008) (“We hold the phrase ‘as a result of’ in the [UCL] imposes a causation requirement; that is, the alleged unfair competition must have caused the plaintiff to lose money or property.”) (Emphasis added).

  10. Must a Plaintiff Choose Between a UCL Claim and a Breach of Warranty Claim? Courts in California Are Split

    Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLPJuly 19, 2019

    Although this combination is pretty standard in class action practice, several federal courts in California have now rejected it, dismissing the equitable claims on the basis that they are precluded by the availability of the legal ones. Others have declined to adopt this reasoning, giving rise to an “intra-circuit split” and a source of uncertainty for class action litigants on both sides.Side One: Plaintiffs Cannot Assert Both Legal and Equitable ClaimsAs the California Supreme Court has explained, “a UCL action is equitable in nature,” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1144 (Cal. 2003), and the “remedies available in a UCL or FAL action are limited to injunctive relief and restitution,” both of which are equitable remedies. In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 116, 130 (Cal.