Diaz v. Mayer Roofing
The trial court overruled Mayers evidentiary objections (or, more accurately, it assumed, for the sake of argument, that all of plaintiffs evidence was admissible). Nevertheless, it denied plaintiffs motion; it found that common questions of law and fact do not predominate over individual issues; the claims of the class representatives are not typical; and that class action is not superior to individual trials and will not confer a substantial benefit on both the court and the parties. Plaintiffs appeal.
Court hold that plaintiffs failed to submit any admissible evidence regarding the criminal investigation. In light of the admissible evidence, the trial court did not err. The order appealed from is affirmed.
Comments on Diaz v. Mayer Roofing