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 kommentar(er)
