Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that federal cases requiring “’extrinsic evidence,’ such as expert testimony or consumer surveys... do not accurately reflect California law.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• explaining that damages under the UCL and FAL “must be of a measurable amount to restore to the plaintiff what has been acquired by violations of the statutes, and that measurable amount must be supported by evidence”
• “[T]he measure of actual damages is the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered according to- the contract of the parties”
• “[A] trial court could, when assessing damages under the CLRA, apply standards different from those the trial court might use when ordering restitution . . . .” (emphasis in original
• a plaintiff can seek money or property as restitution where such “money or property identified as belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff could clearly be traced to particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession”
• a plaintiff can seek money or property as restitution only when the “money or property identified as belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff [can] clearly be traced to particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).