I had some more time to read Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Mar. 1, 2007), and my original impression that the opinion adds little to California class certification jurisprudence has not changed. The following language is a useful confirmation of the limited scope of appellate review of class certification orders after Sav-on:
[T]he admonition to be gleaned from Sav-On is that a reviewing court must abide by the well-established deference afforded a trial court’s determination of commonality. Appellants ignore the language in Sav-On emphasizing that point: “Presuming in favor of the certification order, as we must, . . . we cannot say it would be irrational for a court to conclude that, tried on plaintiffs’ theory, questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.” (Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 329; see also id. at p. 331.)
By the same measure, presuming in favor of the decertification order now before us, we cannot say it would be irrational for a court to conclude that, tried on appellants’ theory, questions of law or fact common to the class do not predominate over the questions affecting individual class members. In accord with Sav-On, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Slip op. at 17. It's hard to get more deferential than whether the trial judge's action was "irrational." My original post on Walsh is here.