Aghaji v. Bank of America, No. B261971 (D2d4 May 31, 2016)
This is a “mass joinder” case. That’s where hundreds of plaintiffs try to join their individual suits into a mega-litigation, without it being subject to any of the rules or restrictions of a class action. These kinds of cases keep popping up in the mortgage litigation context, where a whole swath of homeowners—often represented by a common attorney or firm—try to argue that some kind of defect in the process means that they can’t be foreclosed on, or that they don’t have to pay, or something similar to that.
Showing posts with label joinder of plaintiffs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joinder of plaintiffs. Show all posts
Friday, July 1, 2016
Monday, December 29, 2014
The Benefits and Burdens of Mega-Litigation
Petersen v. Bank of America, No. G048387 (D4d3 Dec. 11, 2014)
In a colorful majority opinion in 2-1 split decision reversing the trial court, the court of appeal holds that 818 individual plaintiffs can permissively join their mortgage-related claims under § 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Taking some good-natured jabs at the “rococo” allegations of the voluminous Third Amended Complaint—in which “[r]hetorical flourishes abound”—Justice Bedsworth’s twenty-page majority opinion references William Jennings Bryan, Aristotle, Cicero, and Herman Melville. It’s a little over the top, perhaps on purpose. But it does read like the Justice had a good time writing it and the analysis doesn’t suffer for the style. Indeed, the opinion devotes the bulk of its discussion to analysis and forgoes the needless but all too typical recitation of the parties’ arguments and other procedural minutiae from the case below. That all said, this one seems like a pretty close call, or at least it seems so to me.
In a colorful majority opinion in 2-1 split decision reversing the trial court, the court of appeal holds that 818 individual plaintiffs can permissively join their mortgage-related claims under § 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Taking some good-natured jabs at the “rococo” allegations of the voluminous Third Amended Complaint—in which “[r]hetorical flourishes abound”—Justice Bedsworth’s twenty-page majority opinion references William Jennings Bryan, Aristotle, Cicero, and Herman Melville. It’s a little over the top, perhaps on purpose. But it does read like the Justice had a good time writing it and the analysis doesn’t suffer for the style. Indeed, the opinion devotes the bulk of its discussion to analysis and forgoes the needless but all too typical recitation of the parties’ arguments and other procedural minutiae from the case below. That all said, this one seems like a pretty close call, or at least it seems so to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)