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

October 2015

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 Ninth Circuit CAFA decision: Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado | Main | BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court to issue opinion in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co. today at 10:00 a.m. »

Wednesday, March 14, 2007


michael walsh

We've seen them also brought as motions to dismiss, or motions to dismiss class allegations. The only one ever granted against a class we represented was reversed on appeal.

mary dumont

it was in fact done in conley v. pge (131 Cal.App.4th 260), court made a big deal of how this should rarely be done, citing Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 223 Cal.4th 429, but then did it. i think there has been a case since saying Conley that says basically never.


It is specificaly mentioned in Carabini v. Superior Court,26 Cal. App. 4th 239, 242-43 (1994) and in City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447, 453-54 (1974). We do these all the time. The fact that the CRC doesn't address it specifically doesn't mean that you can't do it; it just means the time to file is governed by CCP 1005 rather than the special rules in the CRC for motions for class cert or decert. Every time we do it, the plaintiff's counsel moan and wail that it is not allowed. Sometimes they persuade the trial court, sometimes they don't.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2015 Supreme Court Calendar



  • 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
    © 2003-2015
    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