Employment lawyer riverside

 

In an anti-trust action, plaintiff consumer sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed her action against defendants, a foreign automobile manufacturer and its distributors in the United States. The best employment lawyer riverside solves your business disputes.

 Plaintiff consumer filed suit against defendants, a foreign automobile manufacturer and its distributors in the United States, for violations of the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed the class action. Plaintiff sought review and contended that denial of class certification was an appealable order; that common issues of law or fact predominated, and that the "fact of injury" to each member of the class was capable of generalized as opposed to individualized proof; that class action was manageable; and that she was typical of the class she purported to represent. The court reversed and ordered class certification. 

The proper method to seek review of denial of class certification was a writ of mandate. In the interest of justice, the court treated plaintiff's review as a writ of mandate. Common issues of law and fact predominated, and the fact of injury to each member was capable of being generalized. The class action was manageable. Finally, even though plaintiff's purchase price was dissimilar from other litigants, plaintiff's claim was typical of the class she purported to represent.

 The decision was reversed, and class certification was ordered. The trial court erred in denying plaintiff consumer's motion for class certification, because common issues of law or fact predominated, the class action was manageable, and plaintiff's claim against defendants, automobile manufacturer and its distributors, was typical of the class she purported to represent.Plaintiff patient appealed a judgment of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California), which granted the motion for summary judgment by defendant physician and others against plaintiff's medical malpractice suit.

In her suit for malpractice against defendants, physician and others, plaintiff patient claimed that the one-year statute of limitations period under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5 did not begin to run until after she had consulted an attorney who advised her that she had a cause of action. Plaintiff conceded that she had suspected defendants committed malpractice at an earlier date, but that the first attorney she consulted erroneously advised her that she had no cause of action. The court first held that § 340.5 provided a one-year period in which to file a claim following the "discovery" of the injury.  

The court held that such discovery occurred at the time plaintiff learned or should have learned the facts essential to her claim and did not depend upon knowledge, or lack thereof, of her potential legal remedies. Thus, because plaintiff had learned of the injury more than one year before filing her claim, the court held that it was barred by the statute of limitations.The court affirmed the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, physician and others, against plaintiff patient's medical malpractice suit because the suit was barred by the statute of limitations.