Third Appellate District Hands Down Post-In Re Tobacco Cases II Analysis of UCL and CLRA Class Requirements
McAdams v. Monier, Inc., No. CO51841 (February 24), is a decision from the Third Appellate District regarding the certification of a class action under the CLRA and the UCL.В It is instructive on how post- In Re Tobacco Cases II (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 298 class certifications will be handled. The factual context is defendant’s alleged failure to disclose that the color composition of its roof tiles would erode away, leaving bare concrete, well before the end of the tiles’ represented 50-year lifetime.В In an earlier decision, the Third District reversed a trial court decision denying class certification.В The Supreme Court granted and held that decision in the light of its pending consideration of In Re Tobacco Cases II.В After that decision was handed down, the Supreme Court returned McAdams to the Third District.
Hearing the case again on remand, the appellate court reiterated its prior position that an inference of common reliance may be applied to material misrepresentations consisting of a failure to disclose a particular fact.В See Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1293.В The Court then remanded the case back to the trial court for determination of whether or not the representative plaintiff meets the Proposition 64 standing requirements, otherwise finding the UCL claim suitable for class certification.В The appellate court also added the proviso that the members of both the CLRA and UCL classes, prior to purchasing or obtaining their roof tiles, must have been exposed to a statement along the lines that the roof tile would last for 50 years, or would have a permanent color, or would be maintenance free.В The Court said proof of such would be sufficient to permit an inference of common reliance by the entire proposed class.
February 24, 2010
Posted in: Blog