1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.Rptr.3d
  4. 62 Cal.Rptr.3d
  5. 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 39 (2007)
 

AKKERMAN v. MECTA CORP., INC.

No. B192109.

62 Cal.Rptr.3d 39 (2007)

152 Cal.App.4th 1094

Atze AKKERMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MECTA CORPORATION, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Six.

June 27, 2007.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Moxon & Kobrin and Kendrick Moxon, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Gary M. Lape, Costa Mesa, and Joseph C. Owens, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION ON REHEARING

GILBERT, P.J.

The homonym "suit" can mean a legal action or apparel. Though quite dissimilar, the two share one important attribute in class actions. One size does not fit all.

Plaintiff Atze Akkerman appeals an order denying his motion for class certification. He filed an action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500)1 for deceptive advertising against...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases