Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2024

et al. v. The Trump Corp ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186110 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2023). The plaintiffs brought claims under their respective state consumer protection statutes, alleging that they did not recoup their payments to ACN as independent business owners. The plaintiffs also brought common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims on behalf of a nationwide class. The plaintiffs moved to certify four putative classes under Rule 23(b)(3) or, in the alternative, to certify an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) on the issues of the falsity and materiality of statements made by Trump regarding ACN. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court held that common issues did not predominate over individual issues because the alleged misrepresentations made by Trump were not uniform, and reliance on these statements varied among potential class members. The recruitment strategy of ACN involved personal contacts and various marketing materials, making it difficult to determine whether Trump ’ s statements were the primary reason for enrolling. The court also determined that certification of a nationwide common law class was inappropriate because the potential application of 50 different state laws for fraud and negligent misrepresentation would complicate the case. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how common issues of law or fact would predominate over individual questions with variations in state law. The court also denied certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) because individual issues related to exposure, reliance, and causation would still need to be resolved, thereby making issue certification impractical. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In Moyer, et al v. Home Point Financial Corp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183339 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of mortgage borrowers, filed a class action alleging that the defendant engaged in an illegal kickback scheme in exchange for payments from a title and settlement services company that were laundered through third parties. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant ’ s employees accepted illegal kickbacks from All Star Title Inc. in exchange for sending residential mortgage loans, refinances, and reverse mortgages to All Star for title and settlement services. The defendant thereafter charged unnecessary fees for title and settlement services, and sent the kickbacks to a third-party marketing company to create the false impression that All Star was making a legitimate payment for marketing services. The defendant argued that common issues did not predominate because the borrowers’ claims were individualized and the amount of fees charged for each title and for each settlement service would vary greatly based on the price of the property. The court found that the common question of whether class members were overcharged would predominate over the individual different amounts of damages. The court stated that the issue of damages would thereby not destroy standing or predominance. Accordingly, the court concluded that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs in Ninivaggi, et al. v. University Of Delaware, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56194 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2023), a group of university students and parents, filed a class against the defendant, the University of Delaware, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the COVID-19 pandemic forced classes to go online during the Spring 2020 semester. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all undergraduate students who paid tuition during the spring 2020 semester. The court granted the motion. The class was defined as all students who paid tuition, excluding those who received full scholarships. The court found that the definition was objectively clear and administratively feasible for determining class membership. In its analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, the court determined that the class was sufficiently numerous at over 9,000 students who paid tuition during the Spring 2020 semester. The court also stated that there were questions of whether the in person instruction was contractually obligated was common to each class member. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the class members because all of them were charged full tuition and all of them received on-line instruction during the relevant time period. The court ruled that the named plaintiffs were adequate representatives for the class, and they had a basic understanding of the case and that the counsel was qualified and experienced in class actions. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court concluded that common questions predominated, and that a

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online