NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE ... - FatWallet

In Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 128, 136, the plaintiff filed
a class action lawsuit against Hertz Corporation for violation of the CLRA, among other
claims, for charging outrageous sums to refuel rental cars which were returned unfilled.
The plaintiff conceded he did not rent a car from Hertz as a consumer, and was therefore
not a member of the proposed class. (Lazar v. Hertz Corp., supra, at p. 142.) The
appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion for class certification,
concluding in part that although the plaintiff could not represent the class, the case could
proceed as a class action with a new consumer plaintiff being permitted to intervene.
(Ibid.) Under the rule of Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (which was not cited or discussed by
Buy.com), a class may be certified for a case including a CLRA claim even though some
of the members of the class are not consumers. 3
III.
DO COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW PREDOMINATE?
The trial court also denied the motion for class certification on the ground
that Kershenbaum had failed to establish common issues of law predominate. Buy.com
contends that because the class members are residents of all 50 states, and California law
regarding consumer protection claims differs materially from the laws of other states,
differences in the law to be applied to the UCL and CLRA claims will “swamp” the
common issues, making class certification inappropriate.
3 Kershenbaum also cites Lewis v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2007) 156
Cal.App.4th 359 and Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 89,
for the proposition that a case involving CLRA claims may be certified as a class action.
In both cases, which involved sales of motorcycles or other vehicles, some members of
the proposed classes may have intended to use the vehicles for commercial, not consumer
or household, purposes, and therefore could not properly be a part of a class asserting a
CLRA claim. In both cases, the appellate court reversed the order denying class
certification. In neither case, however, was the issue of the limitation of CLRA claims to
consumer plaintiffs raised. A judicial decision is not authority for a point that was not
raised and resolved. (Fairbanks v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 56, 64.)
8