Supreme Court of California

In a putative class action brought by clients against a brokerage firm seeking relief and damages based on an Atlanta-based branch's continuing practice of recording telephone conversations, a judgment affirming dismissal of the action is reversed insofar as it precluded plaintiffs from going forward with their action to obtain injunctive relief where a comparative impairment analysis supported application of California law. However, the judgment is affirmed insofar as it upheld dismissal of the action with regard to the recovery of monetary damages and restitution.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/13/2006
• Published 07/13/2006

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Markun Zusman & Compton, David S. Markun, Pacific Palisades, Edward S. Zusman and Kevin K. Eng, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Herschel T. Elkins, Assistant Attorney General, and Margaret Reiter, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, William F. Alderman and Alejandro Vallejo, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent., National Chamber Litigation Center, Robin S. Conrad, Washington, DC, Stephanie A. Martz;  Mayer, Brown, Row & Maw, Donald M. Falk, Palo Alto, and Fatima Goss Graves for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Deborah J. La Fetra and Timothy Sandefur, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.