Shearin v. Brown
217 Cal. App. 4th 1114
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Robert Lopez filed a putative class action against the State and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation alleging systemic miscalculation of release dates and resulting over-detention for himself and a proposed class of inmates.
- The operative (third amended) complaint asserted false imprisonment, wrongful detention under the California Constitution/Civ. Code § 52.3, and negligence (breach of mandatory duty), and sought class certification for roughly 594 alleged over-detentions.
- Lopez relied on Department documents (early/late release reports, CPRA productions) and deposition testimony of the Department’s custodian (Karen Elliott) to show common problems in release-date calculation; defendants produced evidence showing multiple, individualized causes for over-detention (including court minute‑order errors).
- The trial court denied class certification, finding common issues did not predominate and Lopez’s claim was not typical because his over‑detention stemmed from a sentencing/minute‑order error rather than a uniform departmental policy.
- Lopez also sought review of an earlier order sustaining demurrers to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; the Court of Appeal concluded that order is not separately appealable and dismissed that portion of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions of law or fact predominate for class certification | Lopez: over‑detentions arose from a systematic Department pattern/practice, so common proof can establish liability classwide | Defendants: over‑detentions stem from varied, individualized causes (court errors, holds, parole procedures), so no uniform policy or common proof | Denied: substantial evidence supports trial court’s finding that common issues do not predominate |
| Whether Lopez’s claims are typical of the putative class | Lopez: his circumstances reflect the same classwide miscalculations and duties the class pleads | Defendants: Lopez’s over‑detention resulted from a minute‑order court error, making his claim atypical | Denied: trial court reasonably found Lopez not typical; affirmed |
| Whether evidence of many over‑detentions alone proves a classwide policy and deliberate indifference | Lopez: the fact of many over‑detentions permits inference of a uniform policy and deliberate indifference | Defendants: sheer numbers alone are insufficient without proof of a specific policy, statistics or classwide deliberate indifference | Court: over‑detentions alone do not suffice; need evidence of a specific uniformly applied policy and classwide deliberate indifference |
| Appealability of the order sustaining demurrers to § 1983 claims | Lopez: the demurrer ruling is reviewable under Code Civ. Proc. § 906 because it relates to the class‑certification appeal | Defendants: demurrer ruling is an interim, nonappealable order and not properly reviewed under § 906 | Dismissed: demurrer order not appealable under § 906 or the death‑knell doctrine; appeal as to demurrer dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (standard of review and deference for class certification orders)
- Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (community of interest requirement and analytical focus on predominance)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class certification requires capacity to generate common answers that drive litigation)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (municipal liability for constitutional violations requires deliberate indifference to rights)
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (Cal. 2011) (explaining the death‑knell doctrine and one final judgment rule)
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (Cal. 1967) (origin of the death‑knell exception for class actions)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 194 Cal.App.4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (§ 906 does not permit review of intermediate orders unrelated to the appealed order)
- Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (discovery order in an injunction appeal was not reviewable under § 906 if unrelated to injunction’s merits)
- Wallace v. GEICO Ins. Co., 183 Cal.App.4th 1390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (interim ruling affecting class‑representative standing may be reviewable where it is the legal predicate for striking class allegations)