Opinion ID: 1123091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Class Represented by Plaintiff

Text: (26, 27) Defendants complain that plaintiff's definition of the class she purports to represent as all of that portion of the other minority stockholders who are similarly situated who wish to rely thereon and who agree to compensate Plaintiff and her attorneys for reasonable attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined by the Court after trial is too ill-defined and ephemeral in make-up to constitute a class for the purpose of a class action. They base this contention on the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Giordano v. Radio Corp. of America, 183 F.2d 558, 560-561, that a class composed of persons who are in agreement with the plaintiff cannot constitute a class for this purpose. Defendants' reliance on that case is misplaced. Plaintiff here designates the class as the minority stockholders of the Association. Those similarly situated are easily identified as all of those persons who continued to hold Association stock subsequent to the defendants' exchange of shares for United Financial shares. There is no suggestion that the class is limited to persons who agree with the plaintiff. The further identification of the class as those persons who agree to share in plaintiff's litigation expense does no more than state the applicable rule with regard to equitable apportionment of the litigation expenses incurred by a plaintiff who successfully prosecutes an action on behalf of a class. ( Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 166 [83 L.Ed. 1184, 1186, 59 S.Ct. 777]; Estate of Reade, 31 Cal.2d 669, 672 [191 P.2d 745]; Farmers etc. Nat. Bank v. Peterson, 5 Cal.2d 601, 607 [55 P.2d 867].) The rule of this jurisdiction with respect to class actions is found in section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part: ... when 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 or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all. We have held that the two requisites of a class action under this section are an ascertainable class ... and ... a well defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented. ( Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 [63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].) It is apparent that the requisite community of interest exists among the minority shareholders of the Association and that the class is readily ascertainable. The demurrer was properly overruled. Our holding that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action for restraint of trade disposes of defendants' further contention that the complaint fails to separately state multiple causes of action. The judgment appealed from by plaintiff is reversed. The trial court is directed to overrule the demurrer in conformity with this opinion. Defendants' appeal is dismissed.