In Evans v. Lasco Bathware, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Oct. 13, 2009; pub. ord. Nov. 6, 2009), which was ordered published last Friday, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) affirmed an order denying class certification in a product defect case seeking economic damages for negligence and strict products liability. Evidently, no UCL claim was raised, and the opinion does not mention Tobacco II.
I have not read it carefully, but the outcome of this opinion appears contrary to the well-established principle that "a class action is not inappropriate simply because each member of the class may at some point be required to make an individual showing as to his or her eligibility for recovery or as to the amount of his or her damages." Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319, 333 (2004). "Individualized damages issues" appears to be the only basis for the trial court's denial of certification and the Court of Appeal's affirmance.