CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
We hold that in the circumstances of this case the trial court did not err by applying a balancing test and ordering precertification discovery in a class action for the purpose of identifying class members who may become substitute plaintiffs in place of named plaintiffs who were not members of the class they purported to represent. We conclude there is no bright-line rule that the original class representative plaintiffs must be members of the class to have standing to obtain precertification discovery.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2006, plaintiffs…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Klopstock v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Scott v. City of Indian WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Kight v. Cashcall, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Lee v. Dynamex, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Safeco Insurance of America v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.