CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« "State's high court to untangle voter-modified Unfair Competition Law" | Main | Please participate in an informal Prop. 64 poll »

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d83492b92c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New class action decision: Fireside Bank v. Superior Court:

Comments

Scott

Does this case further muddle the separation between merits and certification? If merits can be addressed before or after certification, why not simultaneous with certification? It may be an interesting opinion, but it is also troubling. I have this sense that that the class certification process is going to get murkier in California.

Scott

Does this case further muddle the separation between merits and certification? If merits can be addressed before or after certification, why not simultaneous with certification? It may be an interesting opinion, but it is also troubling. I have this sense that that the class certification process is going to get murkier in California.

Kimberly

Yes, I thought about that too. The big question decided by Linder was whether or not a plaintiff is required to prove that the case has merit as a prerequisite to class certification. Linder said no. Fireside Bank holds that a plaintiff may, but is not required to, move for summary judgment (or for judgment on the pleadings) before moving for class certification. If a defendant moves for summary judgment before class certification, that means that the defendant has waived any "one-way intervention" due process argument. That was true even before Fireside Bank, and defendants waived the "one-way intervention" rule all the time. Allowing a defendant to seek summary judgment before class certification is a far cry from requiring the plaintiff to prove the merits of the case as an element of class certification. That is because the summary judgment process has built-in procedural safeguards that the class certification process lacks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad