CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    188 The Embarcadero,
    Suite 800
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

April 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      

« New decision on insurer liability under the UCL: Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. | Main | More on Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. »

Friday, July 08, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e201538fbf9556970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New class certification decision: Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC:

Comments

rb

Generally, if a named plaintiff is a member of the class he seeks to represent and has claims typical to the class, he will be considered an adequate representative. Richmond v. Dart Industries (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 474.

Depublication request?

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Possibly so. It may be that both the trial and appellate courts read more into the "adequacy" element than the Supreme Court's precedents warrant. On the other hand, as a practical matter, it should not be particularly difficult to meet the standard stated in this decision if it stays on the books. All you have to do is make your class representatives' declarations more detailed.

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