community of interest requirement in California

2025City’s Conflict of Interest Claim Lacks Merit A conflict of interest among class members will defeat certification when the conflict “ ‘goes to the very subject matter of the litigation.’ ” ( Richmond, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 470-471.) Such a conflict of interest undermines the adequacy of representation, an element of the community-of-interest requirement.

2025City’s Conflict of Interest Claim Lacks Merit A conflict of interest among class members will defeat certification when the conflict “ ‘goes to the very subject matter of the litigation.’ ” ( Richmond, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 470-471.) Such a conflict of interest undermines the adequacy of representation, an element of the community-of-interest requirement.

2026Governing Law Class certification is authorized where the following elements are established: “(1) ‘the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class’; (2) ‘a well-defined community of interest’; and (3) ‘substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.’ [Citations.] ‘The community of interest requirement involves three factors: “(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” ’ ” (

2022DISCUSSION A. Class Certification Principles “Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes class suits in California 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.’ To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citations.] The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class represent

2026No one factor, not even noise level, will be determinative as to all parcels.” (Ibid.) The San Jose court reaffirmed the rule announced in Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833 , 838–840, 842–843) that “a class action cannot be maintained where each member’s right to recover depends on facts peculiar to his case” and remarked “the community of interest requirement is not satisfied if every member of the alleged class would be required to litigate numerous and substantial questions determining his individual right to recover following the ‘class judgment’ determining issue

2019Governing Law and Standard of Review Class actions are statutorily authorized “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 . . . .” (§ 382.) The party seeking class certification must establish (1) “the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class”; (2) “a well-defined community of interest”; and (3) “substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012)

2015(Miller v. Woods (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 862, 873 .) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives 2 who can adequately represent the class.’ ” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 .) “ ‘The burden is on the party seeking certification to establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members.’ ” (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Ca

2014As outlined in Lockheed Martin: " 'The community of interest requirement [for class certification] embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.' [Citation.] Plaintiffs acknowledge it is their burden to establish the requisite community of interest and that 'the proponent of certification must show, inter alia, that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.' [C

2025Proc., § 382.) “As part of the community of interest requirement, the party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate.” (Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 (Duran).) “To determine whether common issues predominate, the court must ask whether ‘ “the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of action alleged” ’ are ‘susceptible of common proof’ for all members of the proposed class (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1024 ), or whether the class members will be ‘ “required to litigate numerous and su

2025Proc., § 382.) “As part of the community of interest requirement, the party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate.” (Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 (Duran).) “To determine whether common issues predominate, the court must ask whether ‘ “the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of action alleged” ’ are ‘susceptible of common proof’ for all members of the proposed class (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1024 ), or whether the class members will be ‘ “required to litigate numerous and su

2004The community of interest requirement recognizes that “ultimately each class member will be required in some manner to establish his individual damages . . . .” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 800, 815 ; Collins v. Rocha, supra, 7 Cal.3d 232, 238 ; Acree v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 385, 397 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 916 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 761 ].) As explained in Employment Development Dept. v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 256, 266 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 636 P.2d 575 ], “a class action is not

2000(Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 470 ; Vasquez, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 809.) The community of interest requirement involves three factors: “(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 470 .) Other relevant considerations include the probability that each class member will come forward ultimately to prove his or her separate claim to a portion of the total recovery a

2026No one factor, not even noise level, will be determinative as to all parcels.” (Ibid.) The San Jose court reaffirmed the rule announced in Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses (1948) 32 Cal.2d 833 , 838–840, 842–843) that “a class action cannot be maintained where each member’s right to recover depends on facts peculiar to his case” and remarked “the community of interest requirement is not satisfied if every member of the alleged class would be required to litigate numerous and substantial questions determining his individual right to recover following the ‘class judgment’ determining issue

2024The rule exists because the community of interest requirement is not satisfied if every member of the alleged class would be required to litigate numerous and substantial questions determining his individual right to recover following the “class judgment” determining issues common to the purported class.’ ” (Quoting City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 459 .) It added that class treatment for nuisance claims is unusual because such claims are “based on a defendant’s activities that inflict individualized property damage upon 5 unique parcels of property,” and, therefore, “

2013(Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320 , 15 P.3d 1071 ]; Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 435 ; Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 629 P.2d 23 ].) The community of interest requirement involves three factors: “(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 470 .) An additional c

2013(Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096 , 1103–1104; Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 .) “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; 6 (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470 ; accord, Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326 ; Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 988 .) Moreover

2025Proc., § 382.) “As part of the community of interest requirement, the party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate.” (Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 (Duran).) “To determine whether common issues predominate, the court must ask whether ‘ “the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of action alleged” ’ are ‘susceptible of common proof’ for all members of the proposed class (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1024 ), or whether the class members will be ‘ “required to litigate numerous and su

2025Proc., § 382.) “As part of the community of interest requirement, the party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate.” (Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 (Duran).) “To determine whether common issues predominate, the court must ask whether ‘ “the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of action alleged” ’ are ‘susceptible of common proof’ for all members of the proposed class (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1024 ), or whether the class members will be ‘ “required to litigate numerous and su

2014P. Morgan & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 212 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 214 ] [“ ‘[t]he adequacy inquiry . . . serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent’ ”]; see also Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1509 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 607 ].) “To resolve the adequacy question the court ‘will evaluate “the seriousness and extent of conflicts involved compared to the importance of issues uniting the class; the alternatives to class representation available; the procedures available to limit and prevent unfai

2014P. Morgan & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 212 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 214 ] [“ ‘[t]he adequacy inquiry . . . serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent’ ”]; see also Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1509 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 607 ].) “To resolve the adequacy question the court ‘will evaluate “the seriousness and extent of conflicts involved compared to the importance of issues uniting the class; the alternatives to class representation available; the procedures available to limit and prevent unfai

2007(Daar, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 704 ; see Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320 , 15 P.3d 1071 ] [proponent of class has the burden to prove the elements for class treatment].) The community of interest requirement is established if (1) common issues of law or fact predominate over issues unique to individual class members; (2) the class representatives have claims typical of the class; and (3) the class representatives will adequately present the class.

2002In order to proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, there must be both “an ascertainable class” and “a well defined community of interest in the questions of law involved affecting the parties to be represented.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ]; see also Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ] (Linder).) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the cla

2026Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 843 (Kaldenbach).) “ ‘ “Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class suits in California 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.” To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citations.] The community of interest requirement involves three factors: “(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class repr

2026Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 843 (Kaldenbach).) “ ‘ “Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class suits in California 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.” To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citations.] The community of interest requirement involves three factors: “(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class repr

2010(Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 326 ; Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096, 1103-1104 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 63 P.3d 913 ]; Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320 , 15 P.3d 1071 ]; Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) The Supreme Court has held, “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and

2010(Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 326 ; Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096, 1103-1104 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 63 P.3d 913 ]; Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320 , 15 P.3d 1071 ]; Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) The Supreme Court has held, “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and

2016Club v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 177, 181 ; and see Johnson, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1517 [“That application of collateral estoppel does not depend on the legal theory advanced in the successive lawsuits is well established”].) We are not persuaded by Williams’s argument that the minor differences in the legal theories asserted in the present action and the Burakoff action suffice to prohibit the application of collateral estoppel. 7 B.

2016Club v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 177, 181 ; and see Johnson, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1517 [“That application of collateral estoppel does not depend on the legal theory advanced in the successive lawsuits is well established”].) We are not persuaded by Williams’s argument that the minor differences in the legal theories asserted in the present action and the Burakoff action suffice to prohibit the application of collateral estoppel. 7 B.

2013“In order to maintain a class action, certain prerequisites must be met, specifically, ‘the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citation.] The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’ [Citation.]” (Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Class certification is properly den

2013“In order to maintain a class action, certain prerequisites must be met, specifically, ‘the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citation.] The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’ [Citation.]” (Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Class certification is properly den

2011(Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 435 .) “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 629 P.2d 23 ].) “The predominance factor requires a showing ‘that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.’ [Citation.] ‘The ultimate question in every c

2011(Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 435 .) “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 629 P.2d 23 ].) “The predominance factor requires a showing ‘that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.’ [Citation.] ‘The ultimate question in every c

2002In order to proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, there must be both “an ascertainable class” and “a well defined community of interest in the questions of law involved affecting the parties to be represented.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ]; see also Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ] (Linder).) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the cla

2002In order to proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, there must be both "an ascertainable class" and "a well defined community of interest in the questions of law involved affecting the parties to be represented." (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ; see also Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 (Linder).) "The community of interest requirement involves three factors: `(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class;

2002In order to proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, there must be both “an ascertainable class” and “a well defined community of interest in the questions of law involved affecting the parties to be represented.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ]; see also Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ] (Linder).) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the cla

2002In order to proceed under Code of Civil Procedure section 382, there must be both “an ascertainable class” and “a well defined community of interest in the questions of law involved affecting the parties to be represented.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 704 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ]; see also Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ] (Linder).) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the cla

2017"The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives. [Citations.] 'In turn, the "community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class." ' " ( *24 Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (

2017"The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives. [Citations.] 'In turn, the "community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class." ' " ( *24 Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (

2014As outlined in Lockheed Martin: " 'The community of interest requirement [for class certification] embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.' [Citation.] Plaintiffs acknowledge it is their burden to establish the requisite community of interest and that 'the proponent of certification must show, inter alia, that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.' [C

2011(Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 435 .) “The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 629 P.2d 23 ].) “The predominance factor requires a showing ‘that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.’ [Citation.] ‘The ultimate question in every c

2004The community of interest requirement recognizes that “ultimately each class member will be required in some manner to establish his individual damages . . . .” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 800, 815 ; Collins v. Rocha, supra, 7 Cal.3d 232, 238 ; Acree v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 385, 397 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 916 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 761 ].) As explained in Employment Development Dept. v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 256, 266 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 636 P.2d 575 ], “a class action is not

2004The community of interest requirement recognizes that “ultimately each class member will be required in some manner to establish his individual damages . . . .” (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 800, 815 ; Collins v. Rocha, supra, 7 Cal.3d 232, 238 ; Acree v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 385, 397 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908, 916 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 761 ].) As explained in Employment Development Dept. v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 256, 266 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 636 P.2d 575 ], “a class action is not

2000You’d have to determine job availability during that particular disability.” Discussion “The party seeking certification as a class representative must establish the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citation.] The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. [Citation.]” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46

2000You’d have to determine job availability during that particular disability.” Discussion “The party seeking certification as a class representative must establish the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members. [Citation.] The community of interest requirement embodies three factors: (1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class. [Citation.]” (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46

2026Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 544, 561 (Fairbanks), quoting Kaldenbach, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 843 .) Here, we are largely concerned with a single aspect of the trial court’s certification decision—whether questions of common or general interest predominate.

2026Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 544, 561 (Fairbanks), quoting Kaldenbach, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 843 .) Here, we are largely concerned with a single aspect of the trial court’s certification decision—whether questions of common or general interest predominate.

2014(Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 89, 98 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) “The adequacy of representation component of the community of interest requirement for class certification comes into play when the party opposing certification brings forth evidence indicating widespread antagonism to the class suit.” (Capitol People First v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 676, 696-697 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 ]; see J.

2014(Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 89, 98 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) “The adequacy of representation component of the community of interest requirement for class certification comes into play when the party opposing certification brings forth evidence indicating widespread antagonism to the class suit.” (Capitol People First v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 676, 696-697 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 ]; see J.

2019Governing Law and Standard of Review Class actions are statutorily authorized “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 . . . .” (§ 382.) The party seeking class certification must establish (1) “the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class”; (2) “a well-defined community of interest”; and (3) “substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012)

2019Proc., § 382.) “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021 ; Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 968 .) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the clas

2019(See, e.g., Ayala, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 530-540.) “As part of the community of interest requirement, the party seeking certification must show that issues of law or fact common to the class predominate. [Citation.]” (Duran, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 28 .) Before certifying a class, the trial court need not resolve all legal disputes concerning the elements of plaintiff’s claims to determine whether common questions predominate.

2014(Ibid.; accord, Ayala, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) “The certification question is ‘essentially a procedural one’” (Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 326 ) that examines “whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment” (id. at p. 327).