Department of Fish & Game v. Superior Court
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mandamus petition seeks to overturn a Superior Court order certifying a Lake Davis-area dispute as a class action.
- Plaintiffs are Lake Davis area real property owners, businesses, and the City of Portola; defendants are the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and related personnel.
- DFG conducted a 1997 poisoning and a 2007 poisoning of Lake Davis to eradicate northern pike; the 2007 action involved road closures and public signage that allegedly created a perception of area-wide closure.
- Plaintiffs allege public nuisance, negligence, inverse condemnation, interference with economic relations, strict liability, and equal protection, seeking class-wide relief for damages.
- The trial court certified three subclasses (A, B, C) purportedly representing different groups of claimants; the Court of Appeal reverses, finding a lack of predominance and misapplied criteria; mandamus relief granted to vacate certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance of common issues for class certification | Gimmy—plaintiffs show common economic impacts. | Defendants—impacts are individualized by property/business types. | No; predominance not shown. |
| Proper criteria for evaluating expert evidence on predominance | Plaintiffs’ experts show common impact evidence. | Defendants’ experts rebut with individualized considerations. | Trial court used improper criteria; must re-evaluate under correct standard. |
| Viability of nuisance claims for class treatment under City of San Jose framework | Liability may be adjudicated common to the class. | Liability is individualized; City of San Jose controls. | Not maintainable as class action; similarities insufficient for predominance. |
| Validity of subclass definitions (A, B, C) for class treatment | Subclass definitions capture common interests and damages. | Subclass C largely consists of a single entity; not a class; overbroad. | Subclass certification cannot stand; three subclasses not maintainable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (courtzyme weighs benefits and burdens of class actions; abuse of discretion standard for certification)
- In re Cipro Cases I & II, 121 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. App. 2004) (abuse of discretion; common issues must predominate; manageability concerns)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (focus on whether theory of recovery is amenable to class treatment)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974) (no per se rule; comparison standard for commonality; individualized issues may defeat certification)
- Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. App. 2010) (corrects improper sequential weighing of evidence; must evaluate theory of recovery for class treatment)