In Re Vitamin Cases
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HAERLE, J.
I. Introduction
In this appeal, four class members challenge the settlement of a class action complaint, which had been brought against a number of manufacturers of vitamin products. They contend that Code of Civil Procedure section 384 (section 384) bars the settlement because it does not allow the members of their class to make individual claims, instead awarding the entire settlement to charitable and nonprofit organizations. We conclude that section 384 does not bar the settlement in this case and, accordingly, affirm.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Granberry v. Islay InvestmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego SectionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- State of California v. Levi Strauss & Co.California Supreme Court · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Patrowicz v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2005
- Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- In re Checking Account Overdraft LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2011
- In Re Vitamin CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- In Re Microsoft I-V CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.