Thompson v. Automobile Club of Southern California CA4/3, 217 Cal. App. 4th 719

Thompson sued the Auto Club of Southern California in a putative class action challenging renewal practices that backdate late renewals to prior expiration within a 95-day grace period.
Auto Club purportedly allows service during the delinquency period and may bill or deny services after 95 days depending on renewal, with a $20 new-member fee if not renewed by then.
Thompson renewed late for several years and alleged lack of disclosure and injury from backdating and renewal practices affecting 12-month benefits, damages, and UCL/CLRA violations.
The trial court denied class certification, finding the proposed class overbroad, lacking commonality, not typical, with predominance requiring individualized inquiries, and not superior.
On appeal, the court reviewed for abuse of discretion under California class-certification standards and affirmed the denial of class certification.
Key evidentiary issues included ascertainability, whether many members were injured or knew of the renewal policy, and whether common questions outweighed individualized issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ascertainability of the class	Thompson: class is ascertainable by renewal after expiration.	Auto Club: class too broad; records insufficient to identify eligible members.	No; class not ascertainable due to overbreadth and record-keeping gaps.
Predominance of common questions	Common contract terms support class treatment.	Individual issues dominate regarding injury, disclosure, and damages.	No; individual issues predominate; not suitable for class treatment.
Typicality of the class representative	Thompson's claims are typical of late-renewal members.	Thompson was expressly informed of renewal policy and chose not to start anew.	No; Thompson not typical due to disclosure and personal choices affecting materiality.
Superiority of class action	Class action is superior to litigating many individual claims.	Individual inquiries dominate; impractical to manage as a class.	No; class action not superior given predominance and manageability concerns.

In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. Supreme Court 2009) (great discretion in certification; abuse of discretion standard)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. Supreme Court 2012) (define standards for commonality and manageability in class actions)
Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. Supreme Court 2000) (three-factor community of interest framework)
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. Supreme Court 2004) (superiority and ascertainability considerations in class actions)
Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal.App.4th 746 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (commonality and predominance in mixed-law claims)