Farwell

Farwell v. Sunset Mesa Property Owners Assn., Inc.

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 4th 1545·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 927·78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 18, 2008B200693California2,713 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

— The four appellants in this case brought an action against respondent Sunset Mesa Property Owners Association, Inc. (Association), and a number of homeowners in the Sunset Mesa development. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint with leave to amend, finding that the individual directors of the Association could not serve as representatives of the defendant class of Sunset Mesa homeowners. Although no judgment was entered in the case, appellants filed the instant appeal, contending that they were entitled to do so under the “death knell” doctrine. We disagree and dismiss the appeal.

THE “DEATH KNELL” DOCTRINE

Notwithstanding its colorful tide, the “death knell” doctrine is a tightly defined and narrow concept. Under this “doctrine,” an order denying the certification of a class is appealable (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 699 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 433 P.2d 732 ]); the rule laid down in Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. has retained its vitality. (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) The reason for this rule, as our Supreme Court put it in Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. is that the denial 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.