Corbett

I respectfully dissent. I believe the majority’s opinion is wrong for a variety of reasons.

I. Irrespective of the Compatibility of Class Actions and UCL Actions, This Petition Should Be Denied

A. This Is an Inappropriate Case for Writ Relief

When the present petition first came before us, I dissented from the issuance of the order to show cause and took the somewhat unusual step (in this court anyway) of stating why. I said: “[I] would not have granted the order to show cause because, in [my] opinion, the trial court’s December 24, 2001, order denying, on several different grounds, petitioner’s motion for class certification of all remaining causes of action (including a portion of the fifth cause of action) renders the present petition substantially if not entirely moot.”

Some procedural background of this case may help explain my prior—and continued—concern. The initial complaint (minus any cause of action under the unfair competition law (hereafter UCL)) was filed in April 2000. Almost 17 months later, petitioner’s motion for class certification was denied 1 but, in the same order, he was granted leave to file a third amended complaint. Three days later, he filed such a…

Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Barry W. Lee, San Francisco, Andrea Hackett Henningsen, Chad D. Bernard, for Real Parties in Interest, Bank of America, N.A.

Christa & Jackson, Laura K. Christa, Laurence Jackson, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest, Hayward Dodge, Inc.

LAMBDEN, J.

In the case before us, Thomas Corbett (Corbett) filed his petition for extraordinary relief challenging the trial court's conclusion, as a matter of law, that it could not certify a class to pursue a claim for violating the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. [1] The court struck the portion of Corbett's pleading against Bank of America, N.A., Bancamerica Auto Finance Corporation, Bank of America Corporation (collectively, Bank of America), and Hayward Dodge, Inc. (Hayward Dodge) for disgorgement of unlawful profits into a fluid recovery fund.

Although numerous courts have presumed they have the authority to certify UCL claims as class actions [2] and reviewing courts have considered what factors must be considered when certifying a class in a UCL lawsuit (e.g., Fletcher v. Security Pacific National Bank (1979) 23 Cal.3d 442, 454 , 153 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 591…

In the case before us, Thomas Corbett (Corbett) filed his petition for extraordinary relief challenging the trial court’s conclusion, as a *654 matter of law, that it could not certify a class to pursue a claim for violating the unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 1 The court struck the portion of Corbett’s pleading against Bank of America, N.A., Bancamerica Auto Finance Corporation, Bank of America Corporation (collectively Bank of America), and Hayward Dodge, Inc. (Hayward Dodge) for disgorgement of unlawful profits into a fluid recovery fund.

Although numerous courts have presumed they have the authority to certify UCL claims as class actions 2 and reviewing courts have considered what factors must be considered when certifying a class in a UCL lawsuit (e.g., Fletcher v. Security Pacific National Bank (1979) 23 Cal.3d 442, 454 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 28 , 591 P.2d 51 ] (Fletcher)), no appellate court has directly addressed the question of whether UCL and class actions are fundamentally incompatible. The question before us is therefore one of first impression. Bank of America and Hayward Dodge, however, maintain that the Supreme…