|
4490 Allegations that defendants permitted their payment service to be used with the specific intent to facilitate operation of an unlawful lottery on the internet are sufficient to make out a case of aiding and abetting in the commission of a tort; allegations that defendants knowingly permitted their payment service to be used in the operation are not sufficient to make out a case of aiding and abetting; a plaintiff who filed an Unlawful Competition Action on behalf of the general public or a class before the passage of Proposition 64 and now lacks standing under the change it brought should be given an opportunity to amend to add a plaintiff who has standing, but not if the allegations otherwise fail to make out a case.CitationSCHULZ v NEOVI (Internet Facilitation) 152 CA4 86 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; Schulz v Neovi (RevGrtd) 129 CA4 1, T/AT 6/05; Branick v Downey 39 C4 235, P/AT 9/06; Fiol v Doellstedt 50 CA4 1318, T/AT 1/97]
|
|
