Civil Litigation
Jan. 24, 2015
Unpacking a rare split decision on permissive joinder
In a rare split decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3, the court delved into an area of civil procedure that rarely sees much attention: permissive joinder of plaintiffs. By Dan Jacobson
Dan Jacobson
Attorney
Phone: (714) 505-4872
Email: dlj@jacobsonlawyers.com
Dan Jacobson is a practicing attorney in Tustin; a law professor-emeritus; a retired Governor of the California Insurance Guarantee Association, having been appointed to that position by Congressman John Garamendi, when Congressman Garamendi was California's Insurance Commission; and, a recently retired member of California's Board of Accountancy, having been appointed to that position by Assembly-Speaker Anthony Rendon.
In a rare split decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3, the court delved into an area of civil procedure that rarely sees much attention: permissive joinder of plaintiffs. On Dec. 11, 2014, the court published [Petersen v. Bank of America], 232 Cal. App. 4th 238, a case that had 965 individual plaintiffs and a 3,142-page complaint. The majority and the dissent offer an exemplar of how the outcome of a case can depend on whether a...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In