• Kimberly A. Kralowec
    Kralowec Law, P.C.
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801

May 2018

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    

« New Jersey Supreme Court invalidates "no class action" arbitration provision: Muhammad v. County Bank | Main | Petition for review filed in Pfizer v. Superior Court »

Friday, August 11, 2006



It warrants publication only to provide an example of where a trial court can deny certification in a Sav-on type situation. Although Sav-on, properly understood, already left the trial court with that discretion. Less experienced judges would often buy the argument from experienced (and clever) class action plaintiff's counsel that "Sav-On says you have to certify an exemption class action" or that "Sav-On says that exemption class actions are all good candidates for certification." Dunbar provides a counter-example. I agree, generally, though that Dunbar does not establish any new principle that is going to change class action law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2018 Supreme Court Calendar



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

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2018
    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