Chargemaster Avoids Class Cert Again

Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, No. D071264 (Nov. 11, 2017)

This is another “chargemaster” medical billing class action, almost identical to the Kendall case I wrote about a few weeks ago. In litigating class cert, the plaintiff raises and the court rejects many of the arguments raised in Kendall. In particular, the court holds that California really recognize the somewhat lower thresholds for class certification that apply under federal law when a plaintiff seeks only declaratory or injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). And since Plaintiff didn’t meet the burden to certify his class under state law requirements, class cert was properly denied.

Affirmed.

Dukes Proves Hazardous to Mandatory Class Settlements

Carter v. City of LA, No. B241060 (D2d1 Mar. 13, 2014)

California law has long been unclear about the conditions under which a mandatory settlement class—that is, a class where class members have a right to object, but not to opt out—can be certified for settlement. It’s an issue that probably doesn’t come up all that much, but it will be pretty significant for practitioners who litigate certain kinds of cases—disability discrimination, consumer UCL, and certain kinds of securities cases—where damages are nominally sought but the relief ultimately provided in a class settlement is often purely injunctive. The court here holds that if the named plaintiff demands monetary relief, and the settlement releases such claims on the class’s behalf, federal procedural due process requires affording class members an opportunity to opt out. Even if their realistic chances of obtaining a monetary recovery are slim to none.