In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) held again that orders denying class certification do not have collateral estoppel effect as to unnamed class members:
We agree with Bridgeford [v. Pacific Health Corp., 202 Cal.App.4th 1034 (2012)] and its adoption as a matter of California law of the United States Supreme Court’s analysis in Smith v. Bayer Corp., supra, 564 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 2368]. Here, Ellis and McCrary were not named parties in Larner nor in privity with any party to that action for purposes of collateral estoppel. Although their economic interests may have been substantially aligned with Larner’s when she began her lawsuit against Los Angeles Doctors, without class certification issues decided in the prior proceeding cannot bind absent putative class members. (See Bridgeford, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044; see also Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1513, fn. 8.)
Ellis v. Pacific Health Corp., No. B226609 (nonpub. Jul. 24, 2012) (slip op. at 7).
My original post on Bridgeford is here.