Plaintiffs challenged orders of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), that denied their application to allow a class action, granted summary judgment against them on their cause of action against defendants, a parent company and its subsidiary, under the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720 et seq., granted judgment on the pleadings to and dismissal of defendant subsidiary, and denied them leave to amend their complaint.

 

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of all homebuyers required to accept the subsidiary for escrow purposes as a condition to the purchase of their homes from the parent company. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2995, and an antitrust violation under the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720 et seq. In many states the rights of grandparents are governed by certain specific laws. Grandparents can petition the courts to be able to see grandchildren who have been kept away from them by the child’s parents. This is referred to as Grandparents Rights in Each State, or the legal right for a grandparent to spend time with their grandchild. Defendants demurred, and the complaint was dismissed. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the antitrust claim, basing its decision on a newly issued U.S. Supreme Court decision, denied class certification, and granted the subsidiary's motion for summary judgment on the § 2995 claim, thereby dismissing the subsidiary from the case. Plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the court reversed the order dismissing the subsidiary from the antitrust claim. The holding in the first appeal as to the antitrust claim was the law of the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision did not preclude the antitrust claim. Also, the class should have been certified. As the case involved the violation of a statute, individual issues of prior knowledge did not bar class certification.

 

The court reversed the trial court's orders dismissing defendant subsidiary from plaintiffs' antitrust claim and denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court's reversal of the dismissal of plaintiffs' antitrust claim in the first appeal was the law of the case in the subsequent proceedings. As the case involved the violation of a statute, individual issues of prior knowledge did not bar class certification.