41 Cal.App.5th 141
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action (April 1, 2015) alleging DWP overcharged electric ratepayers to fund transfers to the City, constituting an unlawful tax.
- The trial court conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes and granted preliminary approval of a settlement (Sept. 14, 2017) creating a $52 million fund plus asserted future savings.
- Carmen Balber, an unnamed class member, timely objected to the settlement (Dec. 27, 2017), arguing notice was inadequate (failure to disclose a planned $241 million transfer) and that the release was overbroad.
- At the fairness hearing Balber filed an ex parte application to intervene (Feb. 14, 2018); the trial court denied intervention as untimely, overruled objections, approved the settlement, and entered judgment (Feb. 26, 2018).
- Balber moved to vacate the judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 663 (Mar. 6, 2018); the motion was denied by operation of law (Apr. 30, 2018). She appealed but did not brief or press the trial court’s denial of intervention nor appeal the denial of her § 663 motion.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed Balber’s appeal for lack of standing because she never became a party of record by successful intervention or by appealing the denial of her § 663 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Balber) | Defendant's Argument (City/DWP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unnamed class member who files a § 663 motion but does not appeal its denial has standing to appeal the class judgment | Filing the motion to vacate in the trial court suffices to obtain standing to challenge the judgment on appeal (relying on Carleson) | Unnamed class members must either intervene before finality or appeal the denial of a § 663 motion to become parties of record; failing to do so forfeits standing | Balber lacked standing; appeal dismissed because she did not challenge the denial of intervention or appeal the § 663 ruling |
| Whether the settlement notice and release were inadequate/overbroad (as Balber argued) | Notice failed to disclose a planned $241M transfer; the release permitted future unconstitutional transfers | Trial court: notice was proper and the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable | Trial court found notice and settlement adequate, but appellate court did not reach merits because of Balber’s lack of standing |
| Whether Carleson controls so that merely filing a § 663 motion (without appealing its denial) confers appellate standing | Carleson shows filing the motion creates party status and standing | Carleson is distinguishable: in Carleson the appellant appealed from the striking/denial of the § 663 motion and challenged intermediate rulings; merely filing is insufficient without an appeal | Carleson distinguished; filing alone did not give Balber standing absent an appeal of the motion’s denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal.5th 260 (2018) (unnamed class members must intervene before finality or file and appeal a § 663 motion to obtain party status and appellate standing)
- Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 20 Cal.2d 199 (1942) (unnamed class members who wish to challenge a judgment must become parties of record by intervention or by a § 663 proceeding)
- County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal.3d 730 (1971) (discussed and distinguished—Carleson involved an appellant who appealed rulings attacking the trial court’s action on the § 663 motion, so its holding does not excuse appealing a denial)