Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of Southern California
134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Two appeals consolidated from denial of class certification in Auto Club roadside battery program cases.
- Davis-Miller plaintiffs alleged UCL, negligent/intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment; Reed alleged CLRA and money had and received.
- Program: Club Assist provides batteries and trains technicians; ICS can sell to members and nonmembers, with member discount and free installation.
- Estimated battery replacement rate ~22% in program; numerous factors affect replacement need; several plaintiffs had unclear testing results.
- Trial court held issues not common to all class members; found lack of substantial common questions, atypicality, and inadequate class representatives.
- Appellate court affirmed, applying UCL and CLRA standards and emphasizing need for common questions and uniform exposure to alleged misrepresentations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under UCL/CLRA | Davis-Miller: common questions exist across class. | Auto Club: reliance on individualized testing and exposure defeats commonality. | Denial of certification affirmed; insufficient common questions |
| Adequacy and typicality of class representatives | Davis-Miller: named plaintiffs represent class fairly and adequately. | Auto Club: representatives lack standing under UCL/CLRA. | Yes, affirmed; inadequate representation and standing found |
| CLRA class action prerequisites (injury, causation, materiality) | Reed: class-wide injury and causation can be shown by materiality/reliance. | Auto Club: class members not uniformly harmed; need individual proof. | Affirmed; classwide injury not established |
| Impact of Tobacco II on commonality analysis | Davis-Miller: Tobacco II supports classwide relief without individualized reliance. | Auto Club: Tobacco II is inapplicable to commonality evaluation here. | Court rejected Tobacco II expansion; Cohen controls commonality analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (standing vs. commonality; reliance required for CLRA damages)
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (common issues and reliance in UCL false advertising)
- Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (standing for false advertising class action; no reliance required for certification)
- Knapp v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 195 Cal.App.4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (uniform misrepresentation proof; classwide reliance issues)
- Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (material misrepresentation; reliance inference considerations)
- Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (community of interest and class certification criteria)
- In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (causation and class-wide injury under CLRA considerations)