Filed 10/13/09; pub. order 11/6/09 (see end of opn.)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION ONESTATE OF CALIFORNIAROY L. EVANS et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.LASCO BATHWARE, INC., et al.,Defendants and Respondents.D053731(Super. Ct. No. GIC865749)APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William R.Nevitt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.Plaintiffs Roy Evans and Arthea LaFrades (together plaintiffs) each owned homesin which shower pans manufactured by defendant Lasco Bathware, Inc. (Lasco) wereinstalled. Plaintiffs' action against Lasco alleged the shower pans suffered from designdefects that resulted in water leakage, and the leakage caused damage to adjacentbuilding components. Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint (FAC), styled as a proposed

2class action lawsuit, alleged two causes of action against Lasco: a claim for strictproducts liability, and a claim for negligence.The present appeal challenges the trial court order denying class certification.Plaintiffs assert the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion for classcertification.IILAW APPLICABLE TO CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDERSA. Standards for Class Actions

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions in California when"the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when theparties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court." Theburden is on the party seeking certification to establish the existence of both anascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members.(

Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.

(2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 (

Linder

).) To establish the requisitecommunity of interest, the proponent of certification must show there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class (the commonality criterion), and thosequestions predominate over the different questions affecting individual members (thepredominance criterion). (See

Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.

(1981) 29 Cal.3d 462,470.) The community of interest requirement also requires a showing that the proposedclass representatives have claims or defenses typical of those held by the class and can

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." (

. at p. 915.) Theascertainability of members of the class recedes as the right of each individual to recover