Cohelan on California Class Actions

Timothy D. Cohelan
Cohelan & Khoury, San Diego, California

Rendering a judgment for or against a nonparty to a lawsuit may constitute a denial of due process under the United States and California Constitutions. (Lambert v. People of State of California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957).) California has recognized for the past 50 years that a judgment may not be entered either for or against someone who is not party to an action. (Bronco Wine Co. v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms, 214 Cal.App.3d 699, 703, 262 Cal.Rptr. 899, 900 (5th Dist.1989).)

Class action practice, however, does allow a court to constitutionally extend jurisdiction over a nonparty. In a typical class action lawsuit, a resident of Los Angeles County may represent the interests of, for example, Tulare County residents who never appear before the Superior Court of Los Angeles. In sharp contrast to individual litigation, in which plaintiffs present themselves to the court and are highly attentive, motivated, and aware of their claims, a class action may bind people who never appear and pay little or no attention to the proceeding and its outcome.

In a class action trial, the evidence offered and the advocacy advanced by the class representative and class counsel affect the entire class, for better or worse. In a settlement, the class representative and class counsel may negotiate on behalf of the interests of the class. Either way, a few affect the rights of many. Thus, notice of the action and a chance to be heard are essential components of the trial court's jurisdiction and due process in class actions. (Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. v. Local Agency Formation Com., 110 Cal.App.3d 164, 173, 167 Cal.Rptr. 735 (4th Dist.1980).)

The "leveraged" effect of a class action makes it substantially different from basic litigation. When individual litigants appear in the courtroom to contest issues, they are bound by normal due process concepts only if they have been designated as parties and duly served with process in a manner consistent with in personam jurisdiction. In a class action, by contrast, the persons litigating in court represent interests beyond the courtroom.

Class action treatment is an equitable concept in that it allows a suit to proceed when the number of interested parties is so large that joining them is impractical under usual rules of procedure and might actually obstruct justice. (Uniform Law Commissioners Model Class Actions [Act] [Rule] prefatory note; Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 61 S.Ct. 115, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940).) The class action device modifies the legal process to maximize expediency and necessity yet still satisfy due process.

Class actions serve the important function of resolving the claims of many individuals at once, saving time and reducing cost. (Kaye v. Mt. La Jolla Homeowners Ass'n, 204 Cal.App.3d 1476, 252 Cal.Rptr. 67 (4th Dist.1988).) This benefits the judicial system by eliminating repetitious litigation and providing a method of obtaining redress for claims too small to warrant litigation on their own. (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., 29 Cal.3d 462, 174 Cal.Rptr. 515, 629 P.2d 23 (1981).)

Copyright © 2001 West Group