In Re Vitamin Cases

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 820·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 425·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 492·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3733·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2923
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 3, 2003A097905California4,277 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. Introduction

In this appeal, four class members challenge the settlement of a class action complaint, which had been brought against a number of manufacturers of vitamin products. They contend that Code of Civil Procedure section 384 (section 384) bars the settlement because it does not allow the members of their class to make individual claims, instead awarding the entire settlement to charitable and nonprofit organizations. We conclude that section 384 does not bar the settlement in this case and, accordingly, affirm.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a coordinated proceeding for numerous separate complaints brought on behalf of a class of “[a]ll purchasers located in the State of California who indirectly purchased vitamins, vitamin premixes, and/or other vitamin products from any of the Defendants for use, but not for resale, at any time during the period January 1, 1988 to” the late 1990’s. The coordinated class complaint (the Class Complaint) alleged that defendants, manufacturers of “raw vitamins . . ., vitamin premixes, and other bulk vitamin products for bulk sales,” committed price fixing in violation of both the Cartwright Act…

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.