Appellant consumer challenged an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted respondent drug manufacturer’s motion for summary adjudication, precluding the consumer’s case from proceeding as a class action. The consumer asserted various causes of action, including negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability, and violation of California’s unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.
Overview
The consumer’s claims were brought largely on the basis that the manufacturer had falsely and deceptively advertised a particular drug as nonhabit-forming. The trial court ruled that the consumer’s lawsuit sought to certify the identical putative class, pursuing the same legal claims, as had been disallowed in prior federal court actions against the manufacturer. The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that collateral estoppel precluded the consumer’s efforts to pursue his § 17200 claim as a class action. The issue of adequacy of representation actually litigated and determined in one of the federal cases was not identical to the adequacy or typicality issues presented by the consumer’s putative class claim. The question that the other federal case actually litigated and decided, the propriety of certifying a nationwide class of the drug users, was not presented by the consumer’s putative class action on behalf of California consumers of the drug. The manufacturer failed to demonstrate that the issues actually litigated and finally decided in the federal actions, regardless of legal theory advanced, were identical to the factual issues as to which preclusion was sought. The California litigation lawyer made a motion to protect the party’s interest.
Table of Contents
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on the class certification issues.
Procedural Posture
Defendants aerodynamics corporations moved to decertify three classes and plaintiffs’ moved to intervene new class representatives in class action for claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 9659, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and for continuing trespass and nuisance arising out of defendants’ discharge of toxic substances.
Overview
The court decertified three classes and denied plaintiffs’ motion for permissive intervention in an action brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 9659 (CERCLA), and the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and for continuing trespass and nuisance due to defendants’ discharge of toxic substances. Because of the individual focus of the statute of limitations defense, Class I no longer met the typicality and adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and the Class II and III non-continuing and CERCLA claims no longer met the predominance of common issues or superior method requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Decertification was required on the continuing trespass and nuisance claims because the non-class members’ interests would not be adequately protected, and class treatment was not the superior method of litigation when neither damages nor abatability could be determined on class-wide basis. The § 17200 representative claims could be litigated under state law. Permissive intervention was inappropriate without a showing that decertification would impair or impede the new representatives’ interests.
Outcome
Motion to decertify classes granted because due to individualized focus on statute of limitations defense, classes no longer met certification requirements of typicality, predominance of common issues, superiority of method of litigation, or non-class members’ interests were inadequately protected, and state law allowed representative action.
