Monday, April 23, 2007

Seastrom v. Neways, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. - April 23, 2007)

This afternoon was slightly more interesting than this morning. Or at least more active. Which is simply to say that some opinions were actually published.

That said, with all due respect to the trio of USD Law alums (Darren Quinn, Alexander Papaefthimiou, and Aubrey Boyd) who represented the plaintiff/appellant in this matter, I have to agree with Justice McConnell on this one. Which I can briefly summarize as standing for the following proposition: A person near the top of a pyramid scheme involving the sale of Product X isn't an adequate or proper representative of a putative class of purchasers of Product X, if for no other reason than that person is also a (virtually certain) defendant.

Sure, I can hypothosize exceptions to this rule. I'm a law professor, after all. But not here.

Sorry, my friends. Better luck next time.