## Facts

- Dart Industries developed the Tahoe Donner subdivision near Truckee, California, consisting of roughly 6,000 lots, and sold approximately 2,600 lots by 1976.
- Purchasers received a subdivision public report that represented adequate water supply, sewage treatment, and recreational facilities would be available for the development.
- Lot owners alleged the developer failed to plan and provide adequate water, sewage treatment, recreational facilities, and maintenance.
- Regulatory actions disrupted development, including litigation over water withdrawals and a Department of Real Estate cease-and-desist order halting sales until sewage connections could be assured.
- Plaintiffs (a group of lot owners) asserted claims including alleged violations of the Subdivided Lands Act and sought damages (including punitive damages), rescission, declaratory relief, and equitable remedies to ensure funding of facilities.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of similarly situated lot purchasers; the trial court denied certification, citing, among other reasons, opposition to the lawsuit by some absent members and the nature of the requested relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may deny class certification based solely on antagonism or opposition to the lawsuit by some absent class members.
2. Whether the inclusion of claims for rescission and punitive damages bars class certification.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the order denying class certification and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that disagreement or opposition by some absent members, without legally conflicting interests on the central issues, does not by itself defeat class certification.
- The Court held that requesting rescission and punitive damages does not automatically preclude use of the class action device when common issues support class treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification in California requires an ascertainable class and a community of interest, including predominant common questions, typicality of the representatives’ claims, and adequate representation.
- Mere differences in class members’ preferences (including reluctance to sue) do not establish inadequate representation absent a true conflict of legal interests regarding the core claims.
- The presence of individualized remedies or damages does not bar certification when common liability issues predominate; individual issues may be managed through later proceedings, subclasses, or tailored relief.
- Rescission and punitive damages may be pursued on a classwide basis where the underlying alleged misconduct and statutory duties present common questions and administration can be structured by the court.
- California policy favors class actions to enforce consumer-protection statutes where individual litigation would be impracticable and class treatment supports deterrence and redress.

## Conclusion

The court required class certification to be evaluated on traditional community-of-interest and adequacy criteria, rejecting categorical denial based on some members’ opposition or on the inclusion of rescission and punitive damages, and it remanded to allow the case to proceed as a class action.


Richmond v. Dart Indus., Inc., 29 Cal. 3d 462, 174 Cal. Rptr. 515, 629 P.2d 23 (Cal. 1981)