Legal Opinion

Petersen v. Bank of America Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 11, 2014No. G048387PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  5. City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Adams v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  2. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  3. In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
  4. In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
  5. Smith v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2026

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API