Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Brockey v. Moore
107 Cal. App. 4th 86 (2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55179
Description
California Appellate Court Upholds Injunction and Jury’s Damages Award Against Entity Purporting to Offer “Legal Aid”
Abstract
The California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury’s award of
damages and the trial court’s permanent injunction against
defendant. Plaintiff low-income individuals received unlawful
detainer summonses advising them that they could seek help from
“an attorney referral service or a legal aid office.”
Plaintiffs consulted their local telephone directory or directory
assistance for “legal aid” and found a local telephone
number for defendant’s business in another part of the state.
When contacted, defendant or his employees instructed plaintiffs to
wire money and, without further discussion, sent them form answers
with the general denial box checked and “will discuss with
the judge at the time of trial” included as a purported
affirmative defense. At trial, plaintiffs testified that they had
thought that they were contacting a “legal aid” entity
through which attorneys represented low-income people free of
charge. On defendant’s appeal, the court, noting
defendant’s failure to “faithfully recite the facts
supporting the verdict and the injunction” and
“skew[ing] in [his] favor” the facts he did mention,
deemed all defendant’s evidentiary arguments waived. The
appellate court stated that defendant’s advertisements were
“calculated to mislead” and that adjusting the
“reasonable consumer” standard was appropriate when
dealing with an unsophisticated audience. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court’s action taking judicial notice of
the term “legal aid” as used in the summons form to
mean “a publicly funded nonprofit law corporation which
provides free legal services to low-income eligible clients.”
Noting that the unfair competition law gave courts great latitude
to protect the public, the court found defendant’s objections
to the injunction against him “meritless.”
