![]() ![]() The court therefore permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and reallege their consumer fraud claims under Kansas law. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiffs had not clearly alleged whether their consumer fraud claims were based on an alleged omission or misrepresentation, which would affect the elements they would have to prove at a class trial. While the plaintiffs argued that discovery may reveal that the proposed class members reside in fewer than 50 states - and that those states may have overlapping laws - the court rejected this argument and found that the “burden of applying the products liability and warranty laws of each class member’s state defeats predominance and, thus, nationwide class certification.” The court, however, refused to dismiss the proposed Kansas-only, consumer-fraud class for lack of factual predominance. With respect to the proposed nationwide class, the court granted the motion to dismiss in light of the need to apply the law of each proposed class member’s home state to resolve his or her claims. ![]() The defendant moved to strike both proposed classes, and the court determined that the motion was properly treated as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The plaintiffs in the case sought to assert claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties on behalf of the nationwide class, and also sought certification of a statewide class of Kansas fuel purchasers alleging consumer fraud. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed nationwide class claims brought on behalf of purchasers of allegedly defective aircraft fuel on the ground that the need to apply the laws of multiple states to the proposed class members’ claims made a finding of predominance impossible. The court’s order striking the class allegations was without prejudice, however, to allow the plaintiff to narrow his class definition to include only residents of those states where the law does not materially differ. ![]() Material differences in state law such as the level of scienter necessary to show fraud, the plaintiff’s burden of proof, statute of limitations and whether reliance may be presumed defeated predominance as to the fraud claim. Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement could not be satisfied as to the unjust enrichment claim due to differences in state laws, such as the applicable statute of limitations, whether unjust enrichment is a standalone claim or a quasi-contract claim, and the accrual date. The motion was not premature because determining variations in state law presented legal issues that could be resolved without discovery, and a motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) was “procedurally appropriate.” The court further concluded that material variations in state law on fraud and unjust enrichment would produce different outcomes, and thus, under Oregon choice of law statutes, the law of the state of purchase would govern each proposed class member’s claim. District Court for the District of Oregon adopted the findings and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul Papak and granted the defendant’s motion to strike the nationwide class allegations. The plaintiff asserted nationwide class claims for unjust enrichment and fraud and claims for violations of Oregon consumer protection law on behalf of a proposed subclass of Oregon purchasers, alleging the defendant misleadingly labeled its supplements in referring to volume per serving rather than the volume per individual pill, capsule or tablet. Decisions Granting Motions to Remand/Finding No CAFA JurisdictionĬlass Certification Decisions Decisions Granting/Affirming Motion to Strike or Dismiss.Decisions Denying Motions to Remand/Reversing Remand Orders/Finding CAFA Jurisdiction.Decisions Permitting/Granting Class Certification.Decisions Rejecting/Denying Class Certification.Decisions Granting/Affirming Motion to Strike or Dismiss.In this issue, we cover three decisions granting motions to strike/dismiss class claims, five decisions denying such motions, 27 decisions denying class certification or reversing grants of class certification, 34 decisions granting or upholding class certification, 11 decisions denying motions to remand or reversing remand orders pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and seven decisions granting motions to remand or finding no jurisdiction under CAFA that were issued during the four-month period covered by this edition. This edition focuses on rulings issued between February 16, 2018, and June 15, 2018.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |