OBJECTING CLASS MEMBER LACKS STANDING TO APPEAL
August 09th, 2016/By Admin/In Newsletter
Objecting Class Member Lacks Standing To Appeal
In Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., the class representatives alleged that Restoration Hardware (“RHI”) had committed numerous violations of California Civil Code section 1747.08, also known as the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, for requesting and recording ZIP codes from consumers who used a credit card in purchase transactions in RHI’s California retail stores. After years of litigation, the court certified the case as a class-action, appointed Michael Hernandez and Amanda Georgino as class representatives (collectively referred to as “Hernandez”), and appointed counsel for the class.
Notice to potential class members advised them of the pending class action and explained they had the option of (1) remaining as part of the class and being bound by the judgment, or (2) excluding themselves from the class and not being bound by any judgment. It also advised that, if they elected to remain in the class, they had the option of entering an appearance through counsel. Two weeks later, other counsel entered an appearance in the action of behalf of Francesca Muller (“Muller”). However, Muller did not move to intervene in the action, or to join as an additional class representative, or to be substituted for Hernandez as class representative.
After a bench trial, the trial court found RHI was liable for more than one million violations of the statute and set a penalty of $30 per violation under section 1747.08 subject to RHI’s right to dispute any specific claim. Under the Judgment, RHI faced a total maximum liability of $36,412,350.
In post-trial proceedings, class representatives Hernandez requested the Court award more than $9,000,000 in attorneys’ fees, payable to class counsel from the fund. RHI agreed it would not contest that request.
Class member Muller requested that the trial court order notice of the attorneys’ fee motion to be sent to all class members, which the court denied. The court granted the attorneys’ fee motion and entered Judgment in the action, and Muller appealed.
Muller asserted that the court erred when it declined to order that notice of the hearing on the attorneys’ fee award be given to all class members, and argued that the award was calculated in violation of applicable standards and procedures. Muller also claimed that the court’s award was an abuse of its discretion.
In response, class representatives Hernandez asserted that Muller did not have standing to appeal the judgment and that the appeal must therefore be dismissed. Alternatively, Hernandez argued (1) no notice to the class of the attorneys’ fee hearing was mandated and (2) the amount awarded as fees, as well as the procedure employed by the Trial court in determining the amount of the attorneys’ fees to be awarded was proper.
In its decision, the Fourth Appellate District found that only a “party aggrieved may appeal” from a judgment (California Code of Civil Procedure section 902) and that, in order to have standing to appeal, a person generally must be both a party of record and sufficiently aggrieved by the judgment or order. In the instant case, Muller was not a party to the action and her appeal therefore could not be maintained.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act or rely upon any of the resources and information contained herein without seeking appropriate professional assistance.]
