Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2024

that the court erred in its class certification order by not applying the manifest defect rule for claims under California, Pennsylvania, and Texas’ implied warranty laws and other states’ consumer protection laws. The court was unconvinced. It noted that GM previously raised and lost this argument. GM further claimed that the court ’ s class certification order improperly applied California warranty law and consumer protection laws. The court clarified that it declined to limit the California class due to its certification of an Unfair Competition Law claim, which lacked the same limitations. GM also asserted that the court ignored evidence of alternative causes and falsely assumed uniform communications by GM dealers and employees. The court maintained that this evidence did not defeat predominance and could still be addressed again at later stages of the litigation. Finally, GM contended that the court erred in approving the plaintiffs’ proposed damages model. The court dismissed GM ’ s objections on the basis that issues regarding damages allocation would not affect predominance. Additionally, the court acknowledged GM ’ s objection regarding one of the class representatives’ qualifications, noting that the representative could not represent the Texas class as he did not purchase his vehicle from a GM-authorized dealership in Texas. Accordingly, the court largely denied GM ’ s motion for reconsideration, except for the removal of the inadequate class representative. The plaintiff in Chimienti, et al. v. Wendy’s International, LLC , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176535 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2023), a fast food consumer, filed a class action alleging that the defendants, McDonald ’ s and Wendy ’ s, mislead consumers when they advertised the quantity of food in their menu items in violation of the New York General Business Law. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s complaint because it found that the advertisements were not misleading as a matter of law. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish an injury because he did not state that he saw the specific advertisements he claimed were misleading. Further, the court determined that the defendants’ advertisements primarily fell into the category of puffery, and that the visual presentation involved no specific or objective claims about the products themselves. The court opined that even if the plaintiff ’ s complaint focused on the size of the hamburgers, which was not considered puffery, a reasonable customer would not be misled by the advertisements. The court opined that the advertisements did not contain specific claims about the weight of the food, and that there was a disclaimer that the weight was approximate. The court found that the plaintiff ’ s breach of contract theory failed because the advertisements did not constitute offers that were capable of being accepted. Additionally, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because it was based on the same facts as the GBL claims. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Similar to Schultz, et al. v. Emory University, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103979 (N.D. Ga. June 15, 2023), the plaintiff in Dixon, et al. v. University Of Miami, 75 F.4th 1204 (11th Cir. 2023), initiated a class action for alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with University of Miami ’ s decision to move from in-person learning to online education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the University of Miami prorated fees and services that the students were unable to access during the pandemic, the plaintiff contended that the school should refund a portion of the tuition fees for the Spring 2020 semester as well. The University of Miami moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s ruling. To succeed in a breach-of-contract claim, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the plaintiff must establish the existence of a contract, a material breach, and resulting damages. The district court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contract and, even if a contract existed, the defendant had the express right to alter or amend its procedures or policies and temporarily close its classrooms and facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err when it found there was no contract, and even if there were, given that the defendant provided for in-person classes and access to campus facilities, it could not be held liable for switching to remote learning under the pandemic conditions. The Eleventh Circuit also agreed with the district court ’ s ruling on the unjust enrichment claims. It reasoned that the decision to switch to remote learning was largely out of the University of Miami ’ s control. The Eleventh Circuit therefore affirmed the district court ’ s ruling granting the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment.

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