Interpreting a key appealability statute and reaffirming a 1942 opinion, the Supreme Court today holds in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. that “unnamed class members may not appeal a class judgment, settlement, or attorney fees award unless they intervene in the action.”  The court’s opinion for six justices by Justice Ming Chin declines an invitation to overrule the 75-year-old opinion in Eggert v. Pac. States S. & L. Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 199 and to align California with a number of federal and other states’ courts that have adopted a less limited standing rule.  Following Eggert, the court concludes, leads to “a manageable process under a bright-line rule that promotes judicial economy by providing clear notice of a timely intent to challenge the class representative’s settlement action.”

Justice Goodwin Liu writes a concurring opinion.  He agrees that Eggert should not be discarded, because “adherence to precedent is a particularly strong consideration on matters of statutory interpretation.”  The separate opinion’s purpose, instead, is “to highlight significant changes in class action litigation practice since Eggert was decided” and to suggest that the Legislature “may wish to revisit the controlling statute in light of those changes.”

The court affirms the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal.  In addition to disagreeing with federal and sister-state case law, it disapproves a 1975 decision by the Second District, Division Five, and the “progeny” of that case, which includes a 2015 opinion by the First District, Division One, a 2005 opinion of the Second District, Division Seven, a 2001 Sixth District opinion, and a 1990 opinion by the First District, Division Two.