USA – CALIFORNIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Steven Kaufhold, Jonathan Gaskin and Urvashi Malhotra, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP
• Class certification is generally easier in California. For example, California does not require a mini- mum number of plaintiffs to satisfy the “numeros- ity” requirement, and a class may also be certified even if individual class members need to prove differing damages. • California generally does not allow dispositive motions to be filed before class certification, but CCP §527 (b) permits a trial court to issue injunc- tive relief before class certification. Federal courts operate in the opposite fashion. • While both California and federal law require court approval of a proposed class settlement, in Califor- nia, class members only have standing to appeal a settlement if they have actually intervened in the action or filed a motion to vacate a judgment approving the settlement. In federal court, any objecting class member has standing to appeal a judgment approving the settlement. • “Fraud on the market” remains a viable theory in federal securities litigation to establish a presump- tion of reliance, whereas California requires each individual plaintiff to prove direct reliance on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation. 1.3 Implementation of the EU Collective Redress Regime Not applicable to the State of California nor the United States of America. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Collective Redress and Class Action Legislation Four principal statutory provisions govern collective redress/class actions in California. First, CCP § 382 provides the procedural basis of Cali- fornia class actions; Second, Bus. & Prof. C §§ 17000 et seq (the “Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”) provides the basis for collective unfair competition claims; Third, Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq (the “Consumers Legal Remedies Act” or “CLRA”) provides the frame- work for collective actions on behalf of consumers
that fall victim to enumerated behaviours designated as deceptive or unfair in connection with transactions for goods or services; Fourth, Labour Code §§ 2698 et seq (the “Private Attorneys General Act” or “PAGA”) permits represent- ative actions to enforce provisions of the California Labour Code on behalf of the State of California. 2.2 Scope of Areas of Law to Which the Legislation Applies Each of the above legislation applies to distinct areas of law and types of disputes in California. CCP § 382 provides the procedural basis for class actions across a wide variety of substantive areas of law in California. These substantive areas of law include securities, consumer, product liability, and labour and employment claims, among many others. Bus. & Prof. C §§ 17200 et seq provides the proce- dural mechanism for unfair competition claims in Cali- fornia and forbids conduct that is unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent under California law. Such claims can be pursued on a representative basis. Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq provides the procedural basis for collective claims against violations of 29 enu- merated categories of consumer protection in Cali- fornia. These prohibitions are interpreted broadly to protect California consumers. Labour Code §§ 2698 et seq provides the proce- dural mechanism for the pursuit of collective redress regarding violations of the California Labour Code. This law permits a plaintiff to act on behalf of the State of California, with 75% of any recovery payable to the State and 25% payable to the workers impacted by the violation[s] of California law. 2.3 Definition of Collective Redress/Class Actions Collective redress in California consists primarily of: • class actions; and • representative actions.
331 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook