17 Cited authorities

  1. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 510 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers
  2. Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.

    23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 528 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that preliminary evaluation whether a CLRA cause of action has merit is appropriate in class certification context; such issues are properly resolved in the context of formal pleadings, including demurrer, summary judgment/adjudication and motions for judgment on the pleadings
  3. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.

    91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 222 times
    Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"
  4. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court

    29 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 197 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding evidence of exposure alone not enough to ground claim for medical monitoring
  5. In re Providian Credit Card Cases

    96 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[p]ublic disclosure, that is the absence of secrecy, is fatal to the existence of a trade secret"; noting "[i]f an individual discloses his trade secret to others who are under no obligation to protect the confidentiality of the information, or otherwise publicly discloses the secret, his property right is extinguished"
  6. Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood

    166 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 38 times
    In Medrazo, the potential class members who bought motorcycles without legally required price labels could be identified from the defendant's sales records and given notice because the "vast majority" of motorcycles the defendant sold did not have the required labels; and after notice was given to all purchasers, those with claims could use the proposed class definition to identify themselves.
  7. Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

    108 Cal.App.4th 110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 42 times
    Affirming the denial of class action status in cases involving earthquake damages because the existence, cause, and extent of property damages and any recovery would necessarily have to be determined "on a case-by-case basis"
  8. Collins v. Rocha

    7 Cal.3d 232 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 77 times
    In Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 238 [102 Cal.Rptr. 1, 497 P.2d 225], our high court observed, "The ultimate question in every case of this type is whether, given an ascertainable class, the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants."
  9. Universal City Studios v. Superior Court

    110 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 22 times
    In Universal Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pages 1283-1284, we described when a contractual obligation not to disclose may give rise to a right to seal a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause.
  10. Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court

    18 Cal.3d 381 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 61 times
    In Blue Chip Stamps, supra, 18 Cal.3d 381, we held that a trial court abused its discretion in ordering certification of a class comprised of persons who sought recovery of excess tax reimbursements that they paid to the defendant trading stamp company while redeeming stamps for merchandise.
  11. Section 382 - Party not consenting to joinder as plaintiff made defendant

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382   Cited 908 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth the requirements for class action certification
  12. Rule 2.550 - Sealed records

    Cal. R. 2.550   Cited 226 times

    (a) Application (1) Rules 2.550-2.551 apply to records sealed or proposed to be sealed by court order. (2) These rules do not apply to records that are required to be kept confidential by law. (3) These rules do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings. (b) Definitions

  13. Rule 2.551 - Procedures for filing records under seal

    Cal. R. 2.551   Cited 91 times

    (a) Court approval required A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties. (b) Motion or application to seal a record (1)Motion or application required A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts