numerosity requirement in California

2014No set number is required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action. [Citation.] Thus, our Supreme Court has upheld a class representing the 10 beneficiaries of a trust in an action for removal of the trustees. [Citation.]” (Rose v. City of Hayward (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) “The ultimate issue in evaluating this factor is whether the class is too large to make joinder practicable . . . ,” 5 (Celano v. Marriott Internal, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2007) 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 .) “ ‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconve

2014No set number is required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action. [Citation.] Thus, our Supreme Court has upheld a class representing the 10 beneficiaries of a trust in an action for removal of the trustees. [Citation.]” (Rose v. City of Hayward (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) “The ultimate issue in evaluating this factor is whether the class is too large to make joinder practicable . . . ,” 5 (Celano v. Marriott Internal, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2007) 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 .) “ ‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconve

2021(See Anaheim Elementary Education Assn. v. Board of Education (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1153, 1157, 1155 [“It is settled that ‘[a] labor union is entitled to represent its members in an action which is inseparably founded upon its members’ employment’ ”; lawsuit sought relief for two temporary teachers and others similarly situated].) We believe the number of affected employees here—107—is sufficiently numerous that, if this were a class action, the numerosity requirement would be met.

2020Proc., rule 23(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. [federal statute similarly requires class “[to be] so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”].) “[T]here is no set number required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action.” (Hebbard v. Colgrove (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1030 ; accord, Hendershot, supra, at p. 1222 ; see Campbell v. Pricewaterhousecoopers (E.D.Cal. 2008) 253 F.R.D. 586, 594 [“While there is no set number of members required [under federal law], courts have generally found classes numbering in the hundreds to be sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement.”];

2020Proc., rule 23(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. [federal statute similarly requires class “[to be] so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”].) “[T]here is no set number required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action.” (Hebbard v. Colgrove (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1030 ; accord, Hendershot, supra, at p. 1222 ; see Campbell v. Pricewaterhousecoopers (E.D.Cal. 2008) 253 F.R.D. 586, 594 [“While there is no set number of members required [under federal law], courts have generally found classes numbering in the hundreds to be sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement.”];

2020Proc., rule 23(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. [federal statute similarly requires class “[to be] so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable”].) “[T]here is no set number required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action.” (Hebbard v. Colgrove (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1030 ; accord, Hendershot, supra, at p. 1222 ; see Campbell v. Pricewaterhousecoopers (E.D.Cal. 2008) 253 F.R.D. 586, 594 [“While there is no set number of members required [under federal law], courts have generally found classes numbering in the hundreds to be sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement.”];

2014Were we to condone merit-based challenges as part and parcel of the certification process, similar procedural protections would be necessary to ensure that an otherwise certifiable class is not unfairly denied the opportunity to proceed on legitimate claims.” 7 ( Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441; see, e.g., Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 796 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 ] [employer cross-claimed against employees who joined class action after signing settlement agreements, and the court properly granted summary judgment on these claims for the employer].) Accordingly, h

2014Were we to condone merit-based challenges as part and parcel of the certification process, similar procedural protections would be necessary to ensure that an otherwise certifiable class is not unfairly denied the opportunity to proceed on legitimate claims.” 7 ( Linder, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441; see, e.g., Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 796 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 ] [employer cross-claimed against employees who joined class action after signing settlement agreements, and the court properly granted summary judgment on these claims for the employer].) Accordingly, h

2014No set number is required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action. [Citation.] Thus, our Supreme Court has upheld a class representing the 10 beneficiaries of a trust in an action for removal of the trustees. [Citation.]” (Rose v. City of Hayward (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) “The ultimate issue in evaluating this factor is whether the class is too large to make joinder practicable . . . ,” 5 (Celano v. Marriott Internal, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2007) 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 .) “ ‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconve

2014No set number is required as a matter of law for the maintenance of a class action. [Citation.] Thus, our Supreme Court has upheld a class representing the 10 beneficiaries of a trust in an action for removal of the trustees. [Citation.]” (Rose v. City of Hayward (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 287 ].) “The ultimate issue in evaluating this factor is whether the class is too large to make joinder practicable . . . ,” 5 (Celano v. Marriott Internal, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2007) 242 F.R.D. 544, 549 .) “ ‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconve

2013There must be some evidence supporting such.' " (Soderstedt, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 ; see also Quacchia, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1447 [party seeking class certification must present substantial evidence of all procedural requirements of certification]; Bauman, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 801 [party seeking class certification must prove approximate size of proposed class].) Here, no such evidence was submitted.

2013There must be some evidence supporting such.' " (Soderstedt, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 ; see also Quacchia, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1447 [party seeking class certification must present substantial evidence of all procedural requirements of certification]; Bauman, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 801 [party seeking class certification must prove approximate size of proposed class].) Here, no such evidence was submitted.

2013There must be some evidence supporting such.' " (Soderstedt, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 ; see also Quacchia, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1447 [party seeking class certification must present substantial evidence of all procedural requirements of certification]; Bauman, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 801 [party seeking class certification must prove approximate size of proposed class].) Here, no such evidence was submitted.

2013There must be some evidence supporting such.' " (Soderstedt, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 155 ; see also Quacchia, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1447 [party seeking class certification must present substantial evidence of all procedural requirements of certification]; Bauman, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 801 [party seeking class certification must prove approximate size of proposed class].) Here, no such evidence was submitted.

2013(See, e.g., Bowles, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 587 [10 class members]; Collins, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 234 [35 class members]; Rose, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 934 [42 class members].) Indeed, the Overtime Class’s size will necessarily surpass the Regular Rate Class’s size because its class definition identifies a broader group of field employees.

2013(See, e.g., Bowles, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 587 [10 class members]; Collins, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 234 [35 class members]; Rose, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 934 [42 class members].) Indeed, the Overtime Class’s size will necessarily surpass the Regular Rate Class’s size because its class definition identifies a broader group of field employees.

2013Predominance of Common Issues “The ‘ultimate question’ the element of predominance presents is whether ‘the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants.’ [Citations.] The answer hinges on ‘whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment.’ [Citation.]” (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1021 .) “A court must examin

2013Predominance of Common Issues “The ‘ultimate question’ the element of predominance presents is whether ‘the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants.’ [Citations.] The answer hinges on ‘whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment.’ [Citation.]” (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1021 .) “A court must examin

2013(See, e.g., Bowles, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 587 [10 class members]; Collins, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 234 [35 class members]; Rose, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 934 [42 class members].) Indeed, the Overtime Class’s size will necessarily surpass the Regular Rate Class’s size because its class definition identifies a broader group of field employees.

2013(See, e.g., Bowles, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 587 [10 class members]; Collins, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 234 [35 class members]; Rose, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 934 [42 class members].) Indeed, the Overtime Class’s size will necessarily surpass the Regular Rate Class’s size because its class definition identifies a broader group of field employees.