A class action allows the courts to manage multiple claims that are typical of a class. Before a class action can proceed, a class must be certified by the courts. A plaintiff may initiate the class certification process by filing a motion to certify class. (Rules of Court 3.764.)

"[W]hen the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one of more may sue or defend for the benefit of all." (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) “By establishing a technique whereby the claims of many individuals can be resolved at the same time, the class suit both eliminates the possibility of repetitious litigation and provides small claimants with a method of obtaining redress for claims which would otherwise be too small to warrant individual litigation.” (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 340.)

“The certification is essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an action is legally or factually meritorious.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1023.) However, a court may “consider” how various claims and defenses “relate and may affect the course of the litigation” even though such “considerations... may overlap the case’s merits.” Id. Any doubts as to the propriety of class certification are to be resolved in favor of certification. (Richmond v. Dart Industries (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 473-75.)

“A motion for class certification should be filed when practicable.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.764(b).) “Notice of a motion to certify or decertify a class or to amend or modify a certification order must be filed and served on all parties to the action at least 28 calendar days before the date appointed for hearing. Any opposition to the motion must be served and filed at least 14 calendar days before the noticed or continued hearing, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. Any reply to the opposition must be served and filed at least 5 calendar days before the noticed or continued date of the hearing, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 otherwise apply.” (Rules of Court 3.764(c)(1).)

In order to certify a class, “[t]he party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021; Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 575; City of San Jose v. Super. Ct. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458.) The party seeking certification has the burden to establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among class members. (Washington Mutual Bank v. Super. Ct. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320, 15 P.3d 1071 (Washington Mutual)).

A class is ascertainable and sufficiently numerous “if it identifies a group of unnamed plaintiffs by describing a set of common characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that group to identify himself or herself as having a right to recover based on the description.” (Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 828. Ascertainability.) It “goes to the heart of the question of class certification, which requires a class definition that is ‘precise, objective and presently ascertainable.’” (Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 836, 858.) There is “no set number required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action.” (Hebbard v. Colgrove, 28 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1030 (1972).)

“Whether a class is ascertainable is determined by examining

1. the class definition,
2. the size of the class, and
3. the means available for identifying class members' at the remedial stage.”

(Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1300.)

There is a well-defined community of interest so long as there are

1. predominant common questions of law or fact;
2. class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class;
3. class representatives who can adequately represent the class; and
4. class treatment is the superior method of adjudicating the case.

(Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 462, 470.)

Common Questions of Law or Fact

The party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate. (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470.)

“Commonality as a general rule depends on whether the defendant's liability can be determined by issues common to all class members: ‘A class may be certified when common questions of law and fact predominate over individualized questions. As a general rule if the defendant’s liability can be determined by facts common to all members of the class, a class will be certified even if the members must individually prove their damages.... [T]o determine whether common questions of fact predominate the trial court must examine the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of action alleged.’ ‘In examining whether common issues of law or fact predominate, the court must consider the plaintiff's legal theory of liability.’” (Knapp v. AT&T Wireless Serv., Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 932, 941 (citations omitted).)

“Predominance” is “whether 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.” (Brinker v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) In examining whether common issues of law or fact predominate, the court must consider the plaintiff’s legal theory of liability. (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326–327.) The determination is dependent on “whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment.” (Id.) “[A]s a general rule if the defendant's liability can be determined by facts common to all members of the class, a class will be certified even if the members must individually prove their damages.” (Id. (citations omitted).)

However, “[a] class action will not be permitted... where there are diverse factual issues to be resolved, even though there may be common questions of law.” (Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1347 (citation ommitted), quoting Block v. Major League Baseball (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 538, 542.)

The affirmative defenses of the defendant must also be considered, because a defendant may defeat class certification by showing that an affirmative defense would raise issues specific to each potential class member and that the issues presented by that defense predominate over common issues. (Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1450.) “This means each member must not be required to individually litigate numerous issues and substantial questions to determine his [or her] right to recover following the class judgment; and the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, must be sufficiently numerous and substantial to make the class action advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants.” (Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th at 1108 (citations omitted).)

But a class action may not be maintained where the existence of damage, the cause of damage, and the extent of damage have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, even if there are common questions. (Basurco v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 11, 119.)

Class Representatives with Claims or Defenses Typical of the Class

The typicality requirement’s purpose “is to assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class. Typicality refers to the nature of the claim or defense of the class representative, and not to the specific facts from which it arose or the relief sought. The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” (Seastrom v. Neways, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1502 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).) “[T]ypicality refers to the nature of the claim or defense of the class representative, and not to the specific facts from which it arose....” (Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1509.)

A “defendant's raising of unique defenses against a proposed class representative does not automatically render the proposed representative atypical.” (Fireside Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1069, 1090-91.) “[E]vidence that a representative is subject to unique defenses is one factor to be considered in deciding the propriety of certification.” (Fireside Bank v. Super. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1069, 1090-91.) Ultimately, “when a defense unique to the class representative will be a major focus of the litigation, or when the class representative's interests are antagonistic to or in conflict with the objectives of those [s]he purports to represent... denial of class certification is appropriate.” (Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 89, 99 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470).)

Class Representatives Who Can Adequately Represent the Class

“The adequacy inquiry... serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent... To assure 'adequate' representation, the class representative's personal claim must not be inconsistent with the claims of other members of the class.” (Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1509 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).)

“The adequacy of representation component of the community of interest requirement for class certification comes into play when the party opposing certification brings forth evidence indicating widespread antagonism to the class suit.” (Capitol People First v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 676, 696-97.)

To resolve the adequacy question, the court will evaluate “the seriousness and extent of conflicts involved compared to the importance of issues uniting the class; the alternatives to class representation available; the procedures available to limit and prevent unfairness; and any other facts bearing on the fairness with which the absent class member is represented.” (Id. at 697.) A party’s claim of representative status will only be defeated by a conflict that “goes to the very subject matter of the litigation....” (Id. (citing Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470).)

Class Treatment Is the Superior Method of Adjudicating the Case

The proper legal criterion for deciding whether to certify a class under is whether the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that a class action is superior to alternative means for a fair and efficient adjudication of the litigation. (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 332.)

“[A] class action should not be certified unless substantial benefits accrue both to litigants and the courts....” (Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 110, 120 (internal quotation marks omitted).) The question is whether a class action would be superior to individual lawsuits. (Id.) “Thus, even if questions of law or fact predominate, the lack of superiority provides an alternative ground to deny class certification.” (Id.) Generally, “a class action is proper where it provides small claimants with a method of obtaining redress and when numerous parties suffer injury of insufficient size to warrant individual action.” (Id. at 120-121 (internal quotation marks omitted).)

“In certifying a class action, the court must also conclude that litigation of individual issues, including those arising from affirmative defenses, can be managed fairly and efficiently.” (Washington Mutual, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 922-923.) “Trial courts must pay careful attention to manageability when deciding whether to certify a class action. In considering whether a class action is a superior device for resolving a controversy, the manageability of individual issues is just as important as the existence of common questions uniting the proposed class. If the court makes a reasoned, informed decision about manageability at the certification stage, the litigants can plan accordingly and the court will have less need to intervene later to control the proceedings.” (Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 29.)