Petersen v. Bank of America Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BEDSWORTH, Acting P. J.
This appeal, after a successful demurrer for misjoinder, tests the limits of California’s permissive joinder statute, section 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure.1 There are no less than 965 plaintiffs *241listed in the caption of the third amended complaint. Strictly speaking, though, this is a “mass action,” not a “class action.” Had this case been filed prior to 2005, in all probability it would have been filed as a class action. However, in 2005, Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) codified at 28 United States Code section 1332(d). (See…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Adams v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Smith v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2026
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.