Order: (COMPLEX)SALES -V- PROFESSIONAL AUTO Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DaVid Mara’ Esq' (SBN 230498)
                                                                    SUPERIOHIEAUIETEJFECDAUFORNIA
     Matthew Crawford, Esq. (SBN 3 10230)                                COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDiNO
     MARA LAW FIRM, pC                                                    SAN BERNARDHD D:STR|CT
     2650 Camino Del Rio N., Suite 302                                           FEB 0 8 2023
     San Diego, California 92108
     Telephone: (619) 234-2833
                                                                                          f“
                                                                     V
                                                                                                I

                                                                                                    l,
     Facsimile: (61 9) 234—4048                                    BY
                                                                            J         A        MES;      PUT;

     Attorneys for Plaintiff DENSON M.        SALES,
     0n behalf of himself, all others similarly
     situated, and on behalf of the general public.




                         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                           IN   AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
      DENSON M. SALES           on behalf of himself,    Case No.        CIVD82010153
11
      all   others similarly situated, andon behalf of
      the general public,
12
            ’   O


      Plaintlffsa
                                                         [MD]      ORDER GRANTING
                                                         MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
13

      V.
14
                                                         Judge: Hon. David        Cohn
15    PROFESSIONAL AUTO TRANSPORT,
                                                         Dept: 826
      INC;ATCO AUTO CARRIERS,                INC. and
16    DOES 2'100’ Induswe’
                                                         Date;   December       15,   2022
17                                                       Time: 10:00 a.m.
      Defendants.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28   [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION                                                          CASE NO. CIVDSZOIOISS
     FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
                                                              [PROPOSED]               ORDER
                                                           Class Certification Principles

              The     California    Supreme Court summarized                           the principles 0f class certification in Brinker

     Restaurant Corp.        v.   Superior Court (Hohnbaum) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021:


                         Originally creatures of equity, class actions have been statutorily
                         embraced by the Legislature whenever “the question [in a case] is
                         one of a    common                or general interest, of many persons, 0r           when     the
                         parties are     numerous, and             it is      impracticable to bring them     all   before
                                                      .”
                         the court       .   .   .         [Citations omitted]          Drawing 0n the language of
                         Code of Civil Procedure                  section 382 and federal precedent,           we have
                         articulated clear requirements for the certification of a class.                              The
                         party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of

10                       an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined
                         community 0f interest, and substantial benefits from certification
11                       that render proceeding                    as        a class   superior t0 the alternatives.
                         [Citations omitted] “In turn, the                  ‘community of interest requirement
12                       embodies three                factors: (1)     predominant common questions of law
                         or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of
13
                         the class; and (3) class representatives                       who can adequately represent
14                       the class.” [Citations omitted; bracketed material in original.]

              Whether a      class should be certified                   is   essentially a procedural question, not a determination
15

     on the merits of the claims.                    (Id. at p.   1023.)        Whether the    plaintiffs are likely to prevail    on the
16

     merits   is    not at issue.        (Ibid.)            Nevertheless, in determining whether there are predominant
17

18
     questions of law or fact often involves                      some       consideration of the merits.

              The Court wrote        in Brinker:
19
                        To   assess predominance, a court “must                           examine the issues framed
20                      by     the pleadings and the law applicable t0 the cause of action
                        alleged.”      must determine whether the elements necessary to
                                                 It
21
                                                             common proof or, if not,
                        establish liability are susceptible of
                        whether there are ways to manage effectively proof any elements
22
                        that   may   require individualized evidence.
23
     (Id. at p.    1024, citation omitted.)

24
              In    Duran    v.   U.S.       Bank National              Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th          1,   28, the    Supreme Court
25
     elaborated on the requirement of predominant                              common     questions of law or fact:

26
                        As   part 0f the          community 0f interest requirement, the party seeking
27                      certification             must show that issues of law or fact common to the

28   [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION                                                                               CASE NO, CIVD52010153
     FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION