Filed 2/24/10 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATIONIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT(Placer)----

TIM M

ADAMS,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.MONIER, INC.,Defendant and Respondent.C051841(Super. Ct. No. SCV 16410)

OPINION ON REMAND

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of PlacerCounty, Larry D. Gaddis, Judge. Reversed with directions.Berding & Weil, Steven R. Weinmann; Jay-Allen Eisen LawCorporation, Jay-Allen Eisen; Ram & Olson, Michael F. Ram;Merrill, Nomura & Molineaux and Jeffrey B. Cereghino forPlaintiff and Appellant.Robles & Castles, William A. Robles and Ranjani Ramakrishnafor Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal involves certification of a class action underthe Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et

2seq.)

and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code,§

17200 et seq.). The action is based on defendant‟s alleged

failure to disclose that the color composition of its roof tileswould erode away, leaving bare concrete, well before the end of

the tiles‟ represented 50

-year lifetime.

In a prior published opinion, we reversed the trial court‟s

order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCLclasses. (

McAdams v. Monier

Inc.

(May 30, 2007, C051841), asmod. June 25, 2007.) The state Supreme Court granted review anddeferred the matter in light of another case on its docket.(

Ibid.

, review granted and opn. ordered nonpub. Sept. 19, 2007,S154088.) The pending case,

In re Tobacco II Cases

(2009)46 Cal.4th 298 (

Tobacco II

), concerned two questions of standingarising from the 2004 amendment to the UCL by Proposition 64.The state high court has now directed us to vacate our decisionand reconsider it in light of

Tobacco II.

(

McAdams

supra

C051841, judg. vacated and cause remanded Aug. 19, 2009(2009 Cal. Lexis 8794).)In doing so, we reiterate our position involving the CLRA,as

Tobacco II

concerned only the UCL. We agree with case law

that an “inference of common

reliance” may be applied to a CLRA

class that alleges a material misrepresentation consisting of afailure to disclose a particular fact. (

Massachusetts Mutual

Unless otherwise specified, undesignated statutory referencesare to the Civil Code.

Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1293(

Massachusetts Mutual

).)As for the UCL, we remand for the trial court to determineif the representative plaintiff meets the Proposition 64standing requirements, as interpreted in

Tobacco II.

Otherwise,we find the UCL action suitable for class certification.Consequently, we r

everse the trial court‟s order denying

certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes.

We do so,however, with one proviso as to defining these classes, which wewill explain in this opinion: The members of these classes,prior to purchasing or obtaining their Monier roof tile product,had to have been exposed to a statement along the lines that theroof tile would last 50 years, or would have a permanent color,or would be maintenance-free. (See

Tobacco II, supra,

46 Cal.4th at p. 324.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tim McAdams, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated (plaintiff), filed a class action lawsuitagainst defendant Monier, Inc. (Monier)

for violating the CLRAand the UCL.

Monier Lifetile LLC was a named defendant in the trial court,but only Monier, Inc., is a party to this appeal.

Plaintiff also alleged a count for breach of express warranty,which is not at issue in this appeal. Another named plaintiff,Richard Wallace, has been dismissed.