Court Opinion

ID: 9551326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:51:22.754686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:31.519198
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
Because of their manifest antipathy to this class action, the majority sanction a grave misuse of an extraordinary writ. The dangerous *390precedential potential of- the prevailing opinion far outweighs the merits of this litigation.
The majority reiterate the commonly accepted rule of class actions: if it is “unmanageable,” it should be dismissed. The question is, who makes the factual determination of manageability, the trial court or a reviewing court on a petition for a writ?
Admittedly this does not appear to be a sympathetic cause. If Blue Chip has collected tax funds improperly, it has allegedly remitted the identical amount to the State of California through the Board of Equalization. Thus Blue Chip is'not painted, with the brush of greed that marked the defendant in Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695 [63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].
Nevertheless all of these facts were considered in protracted pretrial hearings conducted by the trial court. This lawsuit was filed on March 1, 1971. There were lengthy discovery proceedings, in which Blue Chip participated fully. During various pretrial and class certification proceedings no less than 12 superior court judges presided. Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Blue Chip on the first cause of action and partial summary judgment was granted to plaintiffs as to the second cause of action. Following two years of preparation the trial was set for November 3, 1975. On July 18, 1975, more than 4 years after suit was filed and approximately 90 days before the trial date, Blue Chip chose to seek writs of prohibition and mandate. The Court of Appeal properly denied the writs.
This court emphasized in Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 851 [92 Cal.Rptr. 179, 479 P.2d 379], that ordinarily prerogative writs cannot be employed for review of intermediate rulings of a trial court. No exception was noted for class actions. We reiterated what was said in Oceanside Union School Dist. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 180, 185 *391[23 Cal.Rptr. 375, 373 P.2d 439], that where there are “interim orders, the parties must be relegated to a review of the order on appeal from the final judgment.” (Also see discussion in Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169-170 [84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854].) The rule distilled from the analysis in Babb and related cases is that a writ cannot be issued to control a court’s discretion, but in unusual circumstances a writ will lie where, under the facts, that discretion can be exercised in only one way.
It would seem evident that under the foregoing rule a prerogative writ would not issue to prohibit a trial judge from exercising his discretion in determining whether or not a class action lawsuit is “manageable.” Indeed, a trial judge, after numerous pretrial proceedings, is manifestly better qualified to ascertain manageability as a matter of fact, and to project a program therefor, than is a reviewing court to make such determination as a matter of law.
The decision as to the showing required at the pretrial level in order to maintain a class action is within the discretion of the trial court, and that court’s decision will not be disturbed even on appeal unless the court abuses its discretion. (Petherbridge v. Altadena Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 193, 199 [112 Cal.Rptr. 144]; Eaton v. Ventura Port Dist. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 862, 868 [119 Cal.Rptr. 746].)
The same principle covers the trial judge’s decision as to whether the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. (La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 871 [97 Cal.Rptr. 849, 489 P.2d 1113]; Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 706, 715, fn. 4 [125 Cal.Rptr. 147]; Trotsky v. Los Angeles Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 134 [121 Cal.Rptr. 637]; Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 117 [109 Cal.Rptr. 724]; Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541 [99 Cal.Rptr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137].)
It is clear that to maintain a class action the plaintiffs need not establish their certainty of prevailing. As stated by the court in Anthony v. General Motors Corp. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 699, 707 [109 Cal.Rptr. 254], when it reversed an order of dismissal, “It is enough that it appears that evidence in support of plaintiffs’ theory may be available when the case goes to trial.”
*392Refusal of a trial court to dismiss a class action was within its discretion “to guard the integrity of the class action device,” it was held in Anthony v. Superior Court (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 760, 771 [130 Cal.Rptr. 758].
Federal courts have been more visible in the class action arena than state courts. At least three federal circuit cases have held that mandamus is an inappropriate procedure to seek review of trial court decisions to grant or deny class treatment.
In Gold Strike Stamp Company v. Christensen (10th Cir. 1970) 436 F.2d 791, the defendant in an antitrust class action sought a writ of mandamus against a trial judge who had determined that a class action was appropriate and who had ordered notice to class members. In denying the writ, the court said (at pp. 792-793): “We have previously stated that ‘[w]rits of mandamus and prohibition are drastic and extraordinary remedies and should be used sparingly by appellate courts. When used against a trial court, there must be a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court and the right to such relief must appear clear and undisputable.’ [Citation.] The question of whether to allow a suit to proceed as a class action is one primarily for the determination of the trial judge. If he applies the correct criteria to the facts of the case, the decision should be considered to be within his discretion. City of New York v. International Pipe and Ceramics Corp., 410 F.2d 295, 298 (2d Cir. 1969).”
In Interpace Corporation v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1971) 438 F.2d 401, the defendant was faced with two similar, but not identical, class actions in New York and Pennsylvania. The New York court held that a class action was inappropriate, but the Pennsylvania court ruled that a class action could proceed. The defendant then sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Pennsylvania court to vacate its order. The circuit court denied the writ, noting that “not eveiy order which is not immediately appealable may be reviewed by mandamus, even though an abuse of discretion is charged,” and that “a Court of Appeals may not undertake a de novo evaluation of the record and itself exercise a discretionary function which is committed to the trial court.” (Id., at p. 403.) The defendant argued “at length that respondents failed to establish the prerequisites to maintaining a class action,” but the court held that “this type of argument is not a proper matter for consideration by way of mandamus.”
*393Although permitting an interlocutory appeal (28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)), the court in Katz v. Carte Blanche Corporation (3d Cir. 1974) 496 F.2d 747, 752, assumed the impropriety of mandamus review of class treatment decisions: “If the court in entering a class action order acts outside its jurisdiction [citations] or in disregard of appropriate procedural safeguards [citation], the order may be reviewable by mandamus. But if the court has acted within its jurisdiction pursuant to appropriate procedural safeguards and in a non-arbitraiy manner, mandamus will not lie. Solomon v. Continental American Life Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1046 (3d Cir. 1973); Hackett v. General Host Corp. . . . 455 F.2d at 626; Weight Watchers of Philadelphia Inc. v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., 455 F.2d 770, 775 (2d Cir. 1972); Interpace Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 438 F.2d 401, 404 (3d Cir. 1971).” In describing the standard of appellate review, the Katz court declared, “[i]f the district court has applied the correct criteria to the facts of the case, then it is fair to say that we will ordinarily defer to its exercise of discretion.” (Id. at pp. 756-757.)
Even in normal appellate review federal courts have consistently respected the discretionary quality of trial court decisions relating to the propriety of class actions. Price v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 1974) 501 F.2d 1177, 1179, was an appeal from a district court ruling which limited the injunctive relief available to a class of plaintiffs suing an employer and a union for violations of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). The court held that a class action determination is within the trial court’s considered discretion: “As was stated in City of New York v. International Pipe and Ceramics Corp., 410 F.2d 295, 298 (2d Cir. 1969), ‘the judgment of the trial court should be given the greatest respect and the broadest discretion, particularly if ... he has canvassed the factual aspects of the litigation.’ This is so because the district court is in the best position to consider the most fair and efficient procedure for conducting any given litigation. Such a determination by the court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the party challenging it can show an abuse of discretion. Wilcox v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City, 474 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1973); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972); Hackett v. General Host Corp., 455 F.2d 618 (3d Cir. 1972); City of New York v. International Pipe & Ceramic Corp., supra.”
This rule is also recognized in Bermudez v. United States Department of Agriculture (D.C. Cir. 1973) 490 F.2d 718, 725 [160 App.D.C. 150]; Shumate & Co., Inc. v. National Assn. of Sec. Deal., Inc. (5th Cir. 1975) 509 F.2d 147, 155; Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (3d Cir. 1975) *394508 F.2d 239, 245; Kamm v. California City Development Company (9th Cir. 1975) 509 F.2d 205, 210; and Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Company (9th Cir. 1975) 511 F.2d 668, 673; see also 3B Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1969) ¶ 23.50.
Unquestionably the management of a vast and complicated class action is a difficult legal and administrative task for a trial court. It would be understandable if even the most skillful and conscientious trial judge were to resolve doubts against the maintenance of a class action. But once a trial court determines, after appropriate pretrial proceedings, that a class action is appropriate and that it is manageable, I fail to see the justification for a reviewing court to inject itself before trial by the heroic means of a prerogative writ to prevent the matter from being heard. If the trial court erred an appeal is an adequate remedy for the aggrieved party.
The majority have issued a cordial invitation to litigants to seek a prerogative writ in appellate courts whenever a trial court exercises its discretion contrary to their contentions. As this court, and Courts of Appeal, become inundated with writ petitions from interlocutory orders, we will rue this day and the havoc inflicted upon the rule of Babb and Oceanside.
I would deny the writ.
The petition of the real parties in interest Botney and Daar for a rehearing was denied December 29, 1976. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.