virtual representation doctrine in California

2021(Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 .) According to our Supreme Court, it is based on the doctrine of virtual representation, rests upon considerations of necessity and convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.

2009Section 382 actually codifies not class action procedure but the common law doctrine of virtual representation. ( Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) Under the doctrine, a person who was not a party to an action was deemed to have been virtually represented, and thus bound by the judgment, if his or her interests had received adequate representation by a party. [1] (See, e.g., Bernhard v. Wall *989 (1921) 184 Cal. 612, 629 [ 194 P. 1040 ].) The modern law of class actions evolved out of virtual representation.

2009Section 382 actually codifies not class action procedure but the common law doctrine of virtual representation. ( Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) Under the doctrine, a person who was not a party to an action was deemed to have been virtually represented, and thus bound by the judgment, if his or her interests had received adequate representation by a party. [1] (See, e.g., Bernhard v. Wall *989 (1921) 184 Cal. 612, 629 [ 194 P. 1040 ].) The modern law of class actions evolved out of virtual representation.

2009Section 382 actually codifies not class action procedure but the common law doctrine of virtual representation. ( Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) Under the doctrine, a person who was not a party to an action was deemed to have been virtually represented, and thus bound by the judgment, if his or her interests had received adequate representation by a party. [1] (See, e.g., Bernhard v. Wall *989 (1921) 184 Cal. 612, 629 [ 194 P. 1040 ].) The modern law of class actions evolved out of virtual representation.

1972(Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) It is a codification of “the common law theory of convenience to the parties when one or more fairly represent the rights of others similarly situated who could be designated in the controversy.” (Fallon v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.2d 48, 50 [ 90 P.2d 858 ].) “[R]egardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined ‘community of interest’ in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting

1972(Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) It is a codification of “the common law theory of convenience to the parties when one or more fairly represent the rights of others similarly situated who could be designated in the controversy.” (Fallon v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.2d 48, 50 [ 90 P.2d 858 ].) “[R]egardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined ‘community of interest’ in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting

2024Code of Civil Procedure section 382 “is based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which ‘ “rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.” ’ ” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695 , 703–704 (Daar); see Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 266 (Hernandez) [stating that “[t]he class action is codified in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 382,” and “is a product of the court’s equitable jurisdiction that rests on considerations of necessity, convenience, and the belief that in la

2007It provides: "If the consent of any one who should have been joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the complaint; and 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." [4] The Supreme Court has stated that section 382 is based on the "equitable doctrine of virtual representation...." ( Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 703-704 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 ,

2023Penn Phillips, Co. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 184 (Salton City). 13 The Raven’s Cove court noted that the “ ‘justification for the procedural device whereby one may sue for the benefit of many rests on considerations of necessity, convenience and justice.’ ” (Raven’s Cove, supra, at p. 795 ; see also Salton City, supra, at p. 191 [same]; Residents of Beverly Glen, supra, at p. 124 [“representative actions are ‘. . . based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which “ ‘rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice’ ”

2023Penn Phillips, Co. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 184 (Salton City).13 The Raven’s Cove court noted that the “ ‘justification for the procedural device whereby one may sue for the benefit of many rests on considerations of necessity, convenience and justice.’ ” (Raven’s Cove, supra, at p. 795 ; see also Salton City, supra, at p. 191 [same]; Residents of Beverly Glen, supra, at p. 124 [“representative actions are ‘. . . based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which “ ‘rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice’ ” ’

1972(Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) It is a codification of “the common law theory of convenience to the parties when one or more fairly represent the rights of others similarly situated who could be designated in the controversy.” (Fallon v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.2d 48, 50 [ 90 P.2d 858 ].) “[R]egardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined ‘community of interest’ in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting

1972(Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ].) It is a codification of “the common law theory of convenience to the parties when one or more fairly represent the rights of others similarly situated who could be designated in the controversy.” (Fallon v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.2d 48, 50 [ 90 P.2d 858 ].) “[R]egardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined ‘community of interest’ in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting

2007(Cohelan on California Class Actions (2006-07 ed.) § 1:3, p. 4; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 .) Arias argues that the plain language of Proposition 64 is clear and unambiguous, and that it contains no requirement that a representative suit be brought as a class action.

2007(Cohelan on California Class Actions (2006-07 ed.) § 1:3, p. 4; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 .) Arias argues that the plain language of Proposition 64 is clear and unambiguous, and that it contains no requirement that a representative suit be brought as a class action.

2014(Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 988-989 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) ―The 74th Congress knew well enough that labor‘s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.

2014(Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 988-989 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) ―The 74th Congress knew well enough that labor‘s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.

2004Code of Civil Procedure section 382 states: “. . . and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties *740 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.” Reflecting a “general support of class actions” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ), 15 the California Supreme Court “has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative” in determining whether to allow class suits, “encouraging them to incorporate pro

2004Code of Civil Procedure section 382 states: “. . . and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties *740 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.” Reflecting a “general support of class actions” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ), 15 the California Supreme Court “has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative” in determining whether to allow class suits, “encouraging them to incorporate pro

1970With reference to actions under section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been said: “The statutory provision [citation] is based upon the doctrine of virtual representation and is an exception to the general *424 rule of compulsory joinder of all interested parties. . . . ‘[Rjegardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined “community of interest” in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting the parties to be represented.’ ” (California Gasoline Retailer

1970With reference to actions under section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been said: “The statutory provision [citation] is based upon the doctrine of virtual representation and is an exception to the general *424 rule of compulsory joinder of all interested parties. . . . ‘[Rjegardless of which of the alternative conditions of the statute is invoked as authorizing a class proceeding, it has been uniformly held that there must be a well-defined “community of interest” in the questions of law and fact involved as affecting the parties to be represented.’ ” (California Gasoline Retailer

2009IV Superiority Plaintiffs also submit that the court relied on improper criteria, the numerous declarations of purported class members, in determining class treatment is not superior to separate lawsuits. “[0]ne must not lose sight of the fact that the class action statute ‘is based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation, which “ ‘rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1234 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 346 ].) Accordingly, a class action

2004Code of Civil Procedure section 382 states: “. . . and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties *740 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.” Reflecting a “general support of class actions” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ), 15 the California Supreme Court “has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative” in determining whether to allow class suits, “encouraging them to incorporate pro

2024Code of Civil Procedure section 382 “is based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation which ‘ “rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.” ’ ” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695 , 703–704 (Daar); see Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 266 (Hernandez) [stating that “[t]he class action is codified in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 382,” and “is a product of the court’s equitable jurisdiction that rests on considerations of necessity, convenience, and the belief that in la

2009IV Superiority Plaintiffs also submit that the court relied on improper criteria, the numerous declarations of purported class members, in determining class treatment is not superior to separate lawsuits. “[0]ne must not lose sight of the fact that the class action statute ‘is based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation, which “ ‘rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1234 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 346 ].) Accordingly, a class action

2009IV Superiority Plaintiffs also submit that the court relied on improper criteria, the numerous declarations of purported class members, in determining class treatment is not superior to separate lawsuits. “[0]ne must not lose sight of the fact that the class action statute ‘is based upon the equitable doctrine of virtual representation, which “ ‘rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” (Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1234 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 346 ].) Accordingly, a class action

2008(See also In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products, supra, 333 F.3d at p. 769 [“[a]bsent class members are bound provided that the named representatives and their lawyers furnished adequate representation, which they did”].) Additional questions regarding the Alvarez court’s virtual representation analysis are potentially raised by the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Taylor v. Sturgell, supra, 553 U.S. _ [ 128 S.Ct. 2161 ].

2004Code of Civil Procedure section 382 states: “. . . and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties *740 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.” Reflecting a “general support of class actions” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ), 15 the California Supreme Court “has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative” in determining whether to allow class suits, “encouraging them to incorporate pro

2004Code of Civil Procedure section 382 states: “. . . and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties *740 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.” Reflecting a “general support of class actions” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ), 15 the California Supreme Court “has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative” in determining whether to allow class suits, “encouraging them to incorporate pro

1977(Parker v. Bowron, 40 Cal.2d 344, 352 [ 254 P.2d 6 ].) The doctrine of virtual representation rests on considerations of necessity and paramount convenience and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.

1977(Parker v. Bowron, 40 Cal.2d 344, 352 [ 254 P.2d 6 ].) The doctrine of virtual representation rests on considerations of necessity and paramount convenience and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice.

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1975(See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 484 P.2d 964 ]; La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. *578 (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 875-877 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 489 P.2d 1113 ]; Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 236-239 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 497 P.2d 225 ]; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458-460 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 ]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852, 861-862 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ].) The trial court applied them in the present case, citing them in its memorandum decision (the “Opinion Memoran

1967Retailers v. Regal Petroleum Corp. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 844, 850 [330 P:2d 778] ; Chance v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 275, 291 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 373 P.2d 849 ] ; see also Chafee, Some Problems of Equity (1950), 200-205 ; 11 U.C.L.A.

1967Retailers v. Regal Petroleum Corp. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 844, 850 [330 P:2d 778] ; Chance v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 275, 291 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 373 P.2d 849 ] ; see also Chafee, Some Problems of Equity (1950), 200-205 ; 11 U.C.L.A.

1962(See Kirkpatrick v. Stelling, 36 Cal.App.2d 658, 668 [ 98 P.2d 566 ]; 6 Stan.L.Rev. 120, 136, 144.) As held in Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., supra, 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 , “the doctrine of virtual representation . . . ‘ rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice. ’ ” (See Chafee, Some Problems of Equity (1950) p. 231.) It is also apparent that it is impracticable to bring all of the over 2,000 investors before the court other than by a class action.

1962(See Kirkpatrick v. Stelling, 36 Cal.App.2d 658, 668 [ 98 P.2d 566 ]; 6 Stan.L.Rev. 120, 136, 144.) As held in Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., supra, 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 , “the doctrine of virtual representation . . . ‘ rests upon considerations of necessity and paramount convenience, and was adopted to prevent a failure of justice. ’ ” (See Chafee, Some Problems of Equity (1950) p. 231.) It is also apparent that it is impracticable to bring all of the over 2,000 investors before the court other than by a class action.