Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2024

consumption. The plaintiff asserted six claims against General Motors, including one under the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles that were within the putative class definition. The plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of any Colorado consumer who purchased or leased Chevrolet ’ s Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban or Tahoe and GMC ’ s Sierra, Yukon or Yukon XL for model years 2011 to 2014. General Motors argued that the class should not be certified because the majority of the putative class members never experienced the alleged defect or any injury. Specifically, the defendant contended that the plaintiff lacked evidence demonstrating that the Gen IV engines in the vehicles were defective without engaging in individualized inquiries, and thus could not meet his burden to establish commonality. The court disagreed. It found that the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the defect was common across all engines. The court also rejected General Motors’ argument that the plaintiff lacked evidence from a technical expert regarding the vehicles’ defects and thus individualized inquiries into putative class members’ injuries would be required. The court reasoned that, at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiff was not required to produce technical expert evidence proving the defects’ manifestation to meet the commonality burden. The court found that the plaintiff met the remaining requirements of Rule 23 such that class certification was an appropriate way to proceed, and thereby granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. In Yates, et al. v. Traeger Pellet Grills , Case No. 19-CV-723 (D. Utah Sept. 7, 2023), the plaintiffs alleged they purchased bags of Treager ’ s wood pellets for use as a source of fuel and flavor in home grills. They filed a class action alleging that based on the representations on Traeger ’ s wood-pellet packaging, the plaintiffs believed Traeger ’ s pellets were comprised entirely of the wood species indicated on the bag, either mesquite or hickory. The plaintiffs alleged they were harmed because the pellets they actually purchased were comprised entirely, or mostly, of alder or oak wood that was flavored with oil derived from either hickory or mesquite, and had they known, they would not have purchased the wood pellets. The plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The court determined that common questions predominated over individual questions regarding causation. The court opined that the statements at issue, in addition to being the most prominent on the bag, provided the lone description on Traeger ’ s packaging describing the content of the pellet bags. Id. at 14. The court found that every customer relied on the defendant ’ s statements made on every package sold that the defendant admitted were not accurate. The court held that the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that damages were capable of determination on a class-wide basis. The court also ruled that the information on market prices for pellets, with Traeger ’ s own internal information, demonstrated that the defendant charged a premium over competitors’ offerings, thereby providing evidence of damages applicable to the entire class. Accordingly, the court ruled that class certification would be the superior form of adjudication, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Finally, after securing class certification in a consumer fraud class action, the plaintiffs sought to amend the class certification order in In Re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156005 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2023). The plaintiffs filed a multistate common law fraud class against FCA US, LLC. The plaintiffs initially moved to certify two classes, one for common law fraud claims in 11 jurisdictions and one for a North Carolina consumer protection class. The court had granted certification for both classes but, following a recent legal decision, the plaintiffs requested to narrow the multistate fraud class by excluding purchasers from five jurisdictions. The court ruled to exclude all Georgia purchasers from the multistate common law fraud class because Georgia law permits a class-wide presumption of reliance only under specific conditions, which were not met in this case. The court also found that there was no evidence of uniform written misrepresentations in standardized documents that were received by all class members in Georgia. Therefore, the court concluded that the class claims for alleged violations in Georgia failed to predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The court thereby amended the class definitions.

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