Among the requirements to certify a class under California Code of Civil Procedure §382 is that the class proponent must prove that the class representative will adequately represent the class. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v Superior Court 34 Cal 4th 319, 326 (2004). "A class action is a representative action in which the class representatives assume a fiduciary responsibility to prosecute the action on behalf of the absent parties. [Citation.] The representative parties not only make the decision to bring the case in the first place, but even after class certification and notice, they are the ones responsible for trying the case, appearing in court, and working with class counsel on behalf of absent members." Earley v. Superior Court 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1434 (2000). Adequacy of representation also requires that the plaintiff’s interests are not antagonistic to the interest of the class. McGhee v. Bank of America, 60 Cal. App. 3d 442, 450 (1976).
[Read More]

Avoiding Arbitration in Employment Cases Post-Concepcion
By LAUNA ADOLPH, ESQ.

Following the United State’s Supreme Court’s landmark decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742 (2011), which held that California’s Discover Bank rule that invalidated certain class arbitration waivers was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), there was much discussion and speculation regarding the effect the decision would have on class action litigation. While still unsettled, recent case law indicates an employee may be able to avoid arbitration in cases alleging claims under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).
[Read More]

The question of whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and False Advertising Laws (“FAL”) has been increasingly examined by California courts. In January, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its most recent decision addressing this issue in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011). In Kwikset, the plaintiff consumers alleged that they had purchased products falsely labeled “Made in the U.S.A.” and had paid more for the products than they might have, had the products been labeled accurately. The California Supreme Court held that because they paid more for a product based on these false representations, the plaintiffs had suffered an identifiable economic injury. Id. at 329.
[Read More]