Glover v. Superior Court
Filed 7/28/06 Glover v. Superior Court CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| BRUCE M. GLOVER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Real Party in Interest. | B186335 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC279973) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Lorna Parnell, Judge. Petition granted.
Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, Paul D. Nelson and W. Andrew Miller for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Bradley S. Pauley and Wendy S. Albers; Shea, Stokes & Carter, Maria C. Roberts and Shirley A. Gauvin; Sonnett & Associates and Anthony Sonnett for Real Party in Interest.
______________________________________________
A dentist brought a class action against the manufacturer of a dental cement, alleging breach of warranty and fraud. The trial court certified the class of all California dentists who had used the product in their patients' mouths, experienced product failure, and incurred expenses in repairing the dental work damaged by the product. The manufacturer's records were inadequate to enable identification of all California dentists who had used the cement. The parties agreed that the only way notice could be guaranteed to reach all members of the class was to send notice to all California dentists who were practicing during the time the cement was sold. They disagreed, however, as to whether notice should be given on an â€
