978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-01-07 Part 1

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 17
subject Words 3102
subject Authors Roger LeRoy Miller

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2013
People v. JTH Tax, Inc.
212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 728, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 740, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 896
page-pf2
page-pf3
page-pf4
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
viewing court need not address the appellant's arguments because one good reason is sufficient to sustain the order
from which the appeal was taken.
[9] Principal And Agent 308 1
whether a principal-agency relationship exists under a franchise agreement.
[10] Principal And Agent 308 24
308 Principal and Agent
the franchisee.
[11] Principal And Agent 308 1
308 Principal and Agent
[12] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 291
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
page-pf5
page-pf6
page-pf7
page-pf8
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
29Tk388 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
The court's discretion is very broad under the injunctive relief provisions of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
and False Advertising Law (FAL), and the statutory language is a grant of broad equitable power. Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code §§ 17203, 17535.
[21] Appeal And Error 30 854(1)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
viewed for abuse of discretion. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
[22] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 382(2)
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Trial court acted within its discretion in imposing injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False
Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to discipline its franchisees by requir-
ing a franchisee to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against mis-
leading advertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, where the trial court found
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
page-pf9
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7 Relief
29Tk380 Injunction
29Tk382 Grounds, Subjects, and Scope of Relief
29Tk382(2) k. Particular cases. Most Cited Cases
Permanent injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax re-
fund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to ensure that its and its franchisees' advertisements made certain disclosures
“conspicuously” provided adequate notice about what conduct was prohibited, since it would not be feasible for the
court to be more specific about how to make disclosures conspicuous in light of the many different types of adver-
tisements servicer could disseminate. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
212k1013 Scope of Relief in General
212k1016 k. Specificity, vagueness, overbreadth, and narrowly-tailored relief. Most Cited Cases
An injunction must be narrowly drawn to give the party enjoined reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibit-
ed.
30k1079 k. Insufficient discussion of objections. Most Cited Cases
Tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer's failure to further explain its argument or explain the relevance of
the cases it cited waived the argument on appeal that trial court's permanent injunction under Unfair Competition
Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) improperly required servicer to violate the due process rights of fran-
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
page-pfa
29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies
Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to order fran-
chisees to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against misleading ad-
vertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, including evidence that regardless of
servicer's written policies, there was insufficient internal management of advertising practices and there were viola-
tions of law. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sheldon
H. Jaffe, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Respondent.
National Consumer Law Center & National Association of Consumer Advocate, The Sturdevant Law Firm, James
federal lending, unfair competition, consumer protection, and false advertising laws. Liberty argues that the trial
court made errors of law and/or fact in determining that a “handling fee” charged for certain bank products was an
undisclosed finance charge under the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA); Liberty's cross-collection practices re-
garding past loan debts owed by customers were improper; Liberty was vicariously liable for its franchisees' adver-
tising; certain civil penalties for advertising violations should be paid by Liberty; and a permanent injunction regard-
Liberty, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, provides certain tax preparation
and related loan services throughout the United States. As of the time of trial, Liberty had more than 2,000 fran-
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
viewing court need not address the appellant's arguments because one good reason is sufficient to sustain the order
from which the appeal was taken.
[9] Principal And Agent 308 1
whether a principal-agency relationship exists under a franchise agreement.
[10] Principal And Agent 308 24
308 Principal and Agent
the franchisee.
[11] Principal And Agent 308 1
308 Principal and Agent
[12] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 291
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
29Tk388 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
The court's discretion is very broad under the injunctive relief provisions of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
and False Advertising Law (FAL), and the statutory language is a grant of broad equitable power. Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code §§ 17203, 17535.
[21] Appeal And Error 30 854(1)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
viewed for abuse of discretion. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
[22] Antitrust And Trade Regulation 29T 382(2)
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Trial court acted within its discretion in imposing injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False
Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to discipline its franchisees by requir-
ing a franchisee to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against mis-
leading advertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, where the trial court found
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7 Relief
29Tk380 Injunction
29Tk382 Grounds, Subjects, and Scope of Relief
29Tk382(2) k. Particular cases. Most Cited Cases
Permanent injunction under Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax re-
fund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to ensure that its and its franchisees' advertisements made certain disclosures
“conspicuously” provided adequate notice about what conduct was prohibited, since it would not be feasible for the
court to be more specific about how to make disclosures conspicuous in light of the many different types of adver-
tisements servicer could disseminate. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
212k1013 Scope of Relief in General
212k1016 k. Specificity, vagueness, overbreadth, and narrowly-tailored relief. Most Cited Cases
An injunction must be narrowly drawn to give the party enjoined reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibit-
ed.
30k1079 k. Insufficient discussion of objections. Most Cited Cases
Tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer's failure to further explain its argument or explain the relevance of
the cases it cited waived the argument on appeal that trial court's permanent injunction under Unfair Competition
Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) improperly required servicer to violate the due process rights of fran-
29T Antitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIII Statutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
29TIII(E) Enforcement and Remedies
Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) requiring tax refund anticipation loan (RAL) servicer to order fran-
chisees to pay a $15,000 fine to the Attorney General upon a second violation of restrictions against misleading ad-
vertising, and requiring termination of the franchisee upon a third violation, including evidence that regardless of
servicer's written policies, there was insufficient internal management of advertising practices and there were viola-
tions of law. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203, 17535.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sheldon
H. Jaffe, Deputy Attorney General, Attorneys for Respondent.
National Consumer Law Center & National Association of Consumer Advocate, The Sturdevant Law Firm, James
federal lending, unfair competition, consumer protection, and false advertising laws. Liberty argues that the trial
court made errors of law and/or fact in determining that a “handling fee” charged for certain bank products was an
undisclosed finance charge under the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA); Liberty's cross-collection practices re-
garding past loan debts owed by customers were improper; Liberty was vicariously liable for its franchisees' adver-
tising; certain civil penalties for advertising violations should be paid by Liberty; and a permanent injunction regard-
Liberty, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia, provides certain tax preparation
and related loan services throughout the United States. As of the time of trial, Liberty had more than 2,000 fran-

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.