Opinion ID: 1371302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: inadequacy of representation

Text: (17a) We also conclude the trial court abused its discretion in certifying this class action for the reason the plaintiffs fail to adequately represent the members of the class. (18) To maintain a class action, the representative plaintiff must adequately represent and protect the interests of other members of the class. ( La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 871-872 [97 Cal. Rptr. 849, 489 P.2d 1113].) This requirement is a natural consequence of the equitable origins of the action and is the product in part of the relation between the res judicata effect of the class judgment on absent members and the requirements of due process. [12] ( Hansberry v. Lee (1940) 311 U.S. 32 [85 L.Ed. 22, 61 S.Ct. 115, 132 A.L.R. 741]; Carroll v. American Federation of Musicians of U.S. & Can. (2d Cir.1967) 372 F.2d 155, 162.) (17b) The plaintiffs here inadequately represent the alleged class because they fail to raise claims reasonably expected to be raised by the members of the class and thus pursue a course which, even should the litigation be resolved in favor of the class, would deprive class members of many elements of damage. (19) Damages recoverable in a successful nuisance action for injuries to real property include not only diminution in market value but also damages for annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort ( Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 265 [288 P.2d 507]); actual injuries to the land ( Spaulding v. Cameron (1952) 38 Cal.2d 265 [239 P.2d 625]); and costs of minimizing future damages. ( Barnes v. Berendes (1903) 139 Cal. 32 [69 P. 491, 72 P. 406].) The plaintiffs, however, seek only recovery for diminution in market value. (20) It is clear under California law a party cannot, as a general rule, split a single cause of action [13] because the first judgment bars recovery in a second suit on the same cause. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleadings, § 32, pp. 1715-1716.) (17c) As a result, by seeking damages only for diminution in market value, plaintiffs would effectually be waiving, on behalf of the hundreds of class members, any possible recovery of potentially substantial damages  present or future. This they may not do. (21) This court has long been concerned with requiring the representative party to protect the interests of the absent class members, even imposing a fiduciary duty to do so on the representative class member. ( La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 5 Cal.3d 864, 871.) To fulfill this fiduciary duty the representative plaintiff must raise those claims reasonably expected to be raised by the members of the class. (See, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Methode Electronics (N.D.Ill. 1968) 285 F. Supp. 714, 721.) Clearly, under the facts alleged here the members of the class would reasonably be expected to seek recovery of damages beyond mere diminution in market values. (17d) Thus, by certifying this class, the trial court sanctioned a clear violation of plaintiffs' fiduciary duty. [14]