Bruno

Bruno v. Superior Court

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 3d 120·179 Cal. Rptr. 342·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2515
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1981Civ. 25964California5,937 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morris, J.

This petition for a writ of mandate presents the issue, previously undecided in California, of the propriety of using so-called “fluid class” or “cy pres” procedures to distribute damages in state antitrust class actions, We conclude that these methods of distribution are not per se improper in such cases. Consequently the trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion to strike those remedies from the petitioners’ amended complaint. We grant the writ.

I

Petitioners are eight plaintiffs suing, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, three supermarket corporations. It is alleged that between mid-1977 and July 14, 1980, the three supermarkets unlawfully fixed milk prices at an artificially high level in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Petitioners’ amended complaint estimates that the class of milk purchasers they are seeking to represent in the action against the supermarkets consists of between 1 million and 1.5 million people, and that the average claim of each class member does not exceed $125.

Petitioners’ amended complaint seeks treble damages for themselves and all class members, and requests that “said sum be paid on the basis of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.