The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a decision declining to certify a consumer class against IKO Manufacturing, in which the district court wrote that “commonality of damages” is essential, reasoning that the district court had incorrectly read Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), to require proof “that the plaintiffs will experience common damage and that their claimed damages are not ... Keep Reading »
Commonality Class Action Articles
The latest class action developments and trends in commonality, including news, key cases, and strategies.
The District Court for the Southern District of California denied certification in a California consumer class action in which Plaintiffs’ claimed that Maybelline falsely labeled and advertised its “SuperStay 24HR” makeup as having 24 hours of staying power. The Court found several deficiencies in the proposed class of Maybelline makeup purchasers under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3). First, the court found that the proposed class was overbroad because it included ... Keep Reading »
After granting the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) petition, the Ninth Circuit reversed a denial of class certification, finding that the district court had improperly weighed the merits of the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(a)(2) commonality evidence. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendant’s criteria for promoting police officers to investigative positions created a disparate impact on those candidates over the age of 40, which violated California’s Fair Employment and ... Keep Reading »
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action containing over 2,000 individual investors were unable to convince a New York District Court that the reliance element of their claims was susceptible to a common method of proof for all putative class members thereby precluding certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented the involvement a certain individual, known for his investment expertise, would have in the management of their ... Keep Reading »
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied certification in a false advertising case brought under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant developed, encouraged, and promoted three Unlimited Download Websites that offered media titles for a one-time ... Keep Reading »
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied plaintiffs’ motion for nationwide class certification because the proposed class did not meet Rule 23’s commonality or predominance requirements. The putative class plaintiffs had entered into agreements granting them rights to distribute the defendant’s cars in the United States. The plaintiffs had paid the defendant’s “application” fees and, in some instances, prepared dealerships to receive new ... Keep Reading »