California Court of Appeal

In plaintiffs' action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, claiming that defendant failed to disclose that the color composition of its roof tiles would erode away well before the end of the tiles' represented 5-year lifetime, trial court's order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes are reversed where: 1) as to the elements of liability and reliance, plaintiffs' CLR cause of action, based on the alleged failure to disclose is suitable for class treatment; and 2) trial court used improper criteria and made erroneous legal assumptions in denying certification of the proposed UCL class, and on remand, court is instructed to determine if the representative plaintiff meets the UCL standing requirements set forth in Tobacco II.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/24/2010
• Published 02/24/2010

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Berding & Weil, Steven R. Weinmann; Jay-Allen Eisen Law Corporation, Jay-Allen Eisen; Ram & Olson, Michael F. Ram; Merrill, Nomura & Molineaux and Jeffrey B. Cereghino for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robles & Castles, William A. Robles and Ranjani Ramakrishna for Defendant and Respondent.