§Why CasetextPricing

Response Reply

undefined

12 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 239 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"

  2. Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.

    4 Cal.5th 260 (Cal. 2018)   Cited 85 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Hernandez the California Supreme Court held that unnamed class members who have not intervened may not appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure § 902.

  3. Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court

    149 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 97 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Denying writ petition seeking to overturn trial court order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel identification of potential class members in wage and hour lawsuit through opt-out letter; "[w]hile it is unlikely that the employees anticipated broad dissemination of their contract information . . ., that does not mean that they would wish it to be withheld from a class action plaintiff who seeks relief for violations of employment laws"

  4. La Sala v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n

    5 Cal.3d 864 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the enforcement of a due-on-encumbrance clause to be an unreasonable restraint on alienation unless the borrower's conduct endangers the lender's security

  5. Cashcall, Inc. v. Superior Court

    159 Cal.App.4th 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 49 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 4th 273, 290 (2008), precertification discovery of the identities of class members was allowed because, absent precertification discovery, the potential class members would have no knowledge of the alleged violation and would be unable to obtain any relief.

  6. Cryoport Systems v. CNA Ins. Companies

    149 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 33 times

    G037056. March 13, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 04CC10923, Robert J. Moss, Judge. Hall Bailey and Donald R. Hall for Plaintiff and Appellant. Horvitz Levy, Lisa Perrochet, John A. Taylor, Jr.; Cannon Nelms, Anthony L. Cannon and Derrick R. Sturm for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION O'LEARY, J. Cryoport Systems (Cryoport) sued CNA Insurance Companies, Continental Casualty Company, and Valley Forge Insurance Company (hereafter collectively and in the singular CNA),

  7. First Amn. Title v. Sup. Court

    146 Cal.App.4th 1564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Finding trial court abused its discretion in granting precertification discovery where named plaintiff was never member of purported class and observing that court "must weigh the danger of possible abuses of the class action procedure against the rights of the parties under the circumstances"

  8. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Superior Court (Lisa Karnan)

    173 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Leaving "to the sound discretion of the trial court" on remand whether to grant a motion to amend the complaint to substitute a new class representative

  9. Best Buy Stores, v. Superior Ct.

    137 Cal.App.4th 772 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Refusing to take judicial notice of documents not relevant to any issue on appeal

  10. Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.

    191 Cal.App.4th 1201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 1201 (Kullar), the Court of Appeal noted that because no class had been certified, "no attorney-client relationship has yet arisen between [the law firm representing the named plaintiff] and the members of the putative class."