In Re Baycol Cases I & II
51 Cal. 4th 751
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Baycol case involving Bayer's advertising of Baycol; Shaw filed purported class action alleging UCL and unjust enrichment, later adding CLRA claims; class defined as all who purchased Baycol Feb 18, 1998 to Aug 8, 2001 in California.
- Trial court sustained Bayer's demurrer to all claims without leave to amend on April 27, 2007; judgment of dismissal entered; Shaw appealed December 20, 2007.
- Court of Appeal reversed as to Shaw's individual UCL claim but dismissed the class claims on the merits; treated the demurrer as appealable under the death knell doctrine.
- California Supreme Court granted review to resolve timing of appeals in class-action contexts where the demurrer terminates both class and individual claims.
- Issue presented: whether the death knell doctrine extends to orders that terminate both class and individual claims, or only to orders that terminate class claims while leaving individual claims viable.
- Court held that the death knell doctrine requires preservation of viable individual claims; when an order terminates both class and individual claims, the ordinary one final judgment rule applies and the order is not appealable; reverse the Court of Appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of death knell doctrine for orders terminating claims | Daar framework applies if class is dead and individual claims survive | Daar should be read broadly to cover any partial demise of class claims | Does not apply when both class and individual claims are terminated |
| Timing of appeals when the order terminates both sets of claims | Appeal should be allowed to review class-dismissal issues | No appeal until final judgment since all claims ended together | No immediate appeal; ordinary final judgment rule governs |
| Relation to Daar and subsequent cases | Daar supports immediate review for death knell scenarios | Daar limits to cases where individual claims survive | Daar's logic governs only when individual claims survive; not here |
| Bright-line rules in appellate timing | Case law should allow prompt review of class-dismissing orders | Keep one final judgment rule with narrow exceptions | Rule remains bright-line; here exception not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (1967) (death knell doctrine for appealability of class dismissals)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (2000) (limits on death knell doctrine; class-only dismissals with surviving claims)
- Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., 29 Cal.3d 462 (1981) (finality concepts in partial dismissals)
- Farwell v. Sunset Mesa Property Owners Assn., Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 1545 (2008) (death knell doctrine described as tightly defined and narrow)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (recognizes when class claims extinguished but individual claims survive)