Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Okay, seriously -- I think the argument was creative but off-base, because the court in ruling on a certification motion is not in a position to assess whether the representation should be expanded to include claims that counsel has not suggested should be included.
|
Concur. While there are in fact L&M judges in the Bay Area who might actually peer over the bench and say, "Counsel, before I sign this certification order, have you considered moving to amend to add a cause of action for unfair business practices to increase your damages by 30%?", I agree I don't want to live in a world where the judges' duty of procedural fairness to absent class members involves brainstorming and filling in the gaps for plaintiffs' class counsel.
Unless, of course, the judge also peers over the bench at me when I'm defense counsel and says, "Have you considered bringing an Anti-SLAPP motion? Yeeesssss, an Anti-SLAPP motion strikes me as a FAAABulous idea."
