Luckey

Luckey v. Superior Court

Good Law
174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 648·228 Cal. App. 4th 81·2014 WL 3590017
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 2014B253892California9,674 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Petitioner Roman Luckey brought a putative class action against real parties in interest Cotton On USA, Inc., and Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd. (collectively Cotton On) for violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA; Pub.L. No. 108-159 (Dec. 4, 2003) 117 Stat. 1952 ). Prior to class certification, Luckey and Cotton On mediated their dispute and reached a class settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Luckey and Cotton On stipulated to the appointment of a temporary judge for the purpose of ruling on the motions for preliminary and final approval of the settlement. This stipulation was presented to respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Superior Court), which declined to appoint the temporary judge, on the basis that counsel for Luckey had no authority to sign the stipulation on behalf of the absent putative class members. Luckey filed a petition for writ of mandate, challenging this ruling. We conclude that the California Constitution, the California Rules of Court, and public policy concerns all preclude the appointment of a temporary judge for purposes of approving the settlement of a precertification…

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.