3adequately represent the class. (
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court
(2003) 29Cal.4th 1096, 1104.)The predominance criteria means "each member must not be required toindividually litigate numerous and substantial questions to determine his [or her] right torecover following the class judgment; and the issues which may be jointly tried, whencompared with those requiring separate adjudication, must be sufficiently numerous andsubstantial to make the class action advantageous to the judicial process and to thelitigants." (
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
(1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 460 (
San Jose
).)When the proposed class action will not provide substantial benefits both to the courtsand the litigants, it is proper to deny certification. (
Linder, supra
, 23 Cal.4th at p. 435.)In addition to showing predominance of common questions, the proponent has theburden to show the proposed class is ascertainable. "Whether a class is ascertainable isdetermined by examining (1) the class definition, (2) the size of the class, and (3) themeans available for identifying class members. [Citations.]" (
Reyes v. Board of Supervisors
(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1271.) Ascertainability, a separate criterionrequired "to give notice to putative class members as to whom the judgment in the actionwill be res judicata" (
Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp
. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 908,914 (
Hicks
)), is best implemented by "defining the class in terms of objectivecharacteristics and common transactional facts making the ultimate identification of classmembers possible when that identification becomes necessary." (
Id
. at p. 915.) Theascertainability of members of the class recedes as the right of each individual to recover
Leave a Comment