DT Woodard v. Mailboxes Etc.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to certify a class action in causes of action alleging defendants violation of the California Franchise Investment Law (Corp. Code section 31000 et seq. (CFIL)) and common law intentional misrepresentation. We find that the trial court made erroneous assumptions of law in finding that individual issues predominated over common issues of law and fact with regard to reliance. Plaintiff has alleged facts which create at least an inference of plaintiffs reliance on defendants representations, which induced plaintiff to agree to amend a franchise agreement. The trial courts finding that individualized proof would be required on the issues of causation and damages used inappropriate criteria. The need for individual proof of causation and damages does not defeat class certification. This analysis also applies to plaintiffs cause of action for intentional misrepresentation. Court reverse the order denying the class certification motion.
Comments on DT Woodard v. Mailboxes Etc.