Life After Amchem: The Class Struggle Continues, page 13

Life After Amchem (continued)

Page 13

By contrast, lamented Vasquez,

[i]f each is left to assert his rights alone if and when he can, there will at best be a random and fragmentary enforcement, if there is any at all. This result is not only unfortunate in the particular case, but it will operate seriously to impair the deterrent effect of the sanctions which underlie much contemporary law.⁴⁸

Vasquez was followed by a series of California decisions that certified or mandated the certification of statewide and nationwide classes in cases of consumer fraud, unfair business practices, and product liability.⁴⁹

California was not alone. Other states demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the historical underpinnings, equitable principles, and modern application of the class action mechanism. For example, in Wood River Area Development Corporation v. Germania Federal Savings and Loan Assoc'n,⁵⁰ the Illinois Court of Appeals drew direct parallels between the original groups whose rights were adjudicated in English equity practice, "rural tenants and landlords, and parishioners and parsons," and the masses of average Americans who depend on them today: "No matter how refined, how revised, or how evolved this flashy import becomes, the goal of the class action remains the same -- justice for the lowly, the tenants, the parishioners, the multitudes."⁵¹

Most recently, Judge Ramos of the New York State Supreme Court invoked these principles in the certification of five classes of New York smokers against the major tobacco companies on consumer fraud claims. In so doing, he reminded us that

[t]he purpose of the class action is to provide "a means of inducing socially and ethically responsible behavior on the part of large and wealthy institutions. Without the benefit of the class action, these institutions could act with impunity . . . since, realistically speaking, our legal system inhibits the bringing of suits based upon small claims."⁵²

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

NOTES

⁴⁸ Id. at 807, 484 P.2d at 968, 94 Cal. Rptr. at 800.

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Sindell v. Abbott Lab., 26 Cal. 3d 588, 611-12, 607 P.2d 924, 937, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132, 145 (1980) (establishing doctrine of market share liability in DES tort claimants' class action); Clothesrigger, Inc. v. GTE Corp., 191 Cal. App. 3d 605, 609-10, 236 Cal. Rptr. 605, 606 (1987) (seeking damages and injunctive relief for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices in long distance telephone overcharges); Anthony v. General Motors Corp., 33 Cal. App. 3d 699, 702, 109 Cal. Rptr. 254, 255-56 (1973) (seeking injunctive relief for truck wheel product liability).

⁵⁰ 555 N.E.2d 1150 (Ill. App. 1990).

⁵¹ Id. at 1152.

⁵² Memorandum Disposing of Pending Class Certification Motions at 15, Zito v. The American Tobacco Co. (N.Y. Oct. 28, 1997) (Index No. 110949/96) (quoting Pruitt v. Rockefeller Ctr. Properties Inc., 574 N.Y.S. 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (on file with Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review).