Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2025

because common questions of law or fact predominated over any individual issues. Finally, the court concluded that a class action was the superior method of adjudication due to the modest amounts at stake for individual class members, the lack of other pending litigation, and the efficiency of adjudicating the claims in a single forum. Accordingly, the court certified the plaintiffs’ proposed classes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the terms of E1000 aircraft customer reservation agreements in Hanney, et al. v. Epic Aircraft, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85112 (D. Ore. May 12, 2024). Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the marketing and sale of its E1000 aircraft and brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims for violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) against Epic Aircraft. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion. The court thereafter adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and granted class certification. Epic Aircraft contended that the class did not meet the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1). The court disagreed. It found that the class of 34 to 50 members would make joinder impracticable, particularly since the class members were geographically dispersed across more than 20 states and countries. Epic Aircraft also opposed class certification by arguing a class action was not superior to other methods for resolving the controversy and that individual actions would be more appropriate given the nature of the claims and the potential recovery. The court rejected this argument too. It found the benefits of judicial economy and efficiency made a class action the superior method of adjudication. The court reasoned that no class members had filed separate lawsuits, and therefore a class action would prevent inconsistent adjudications. Finally, Epic Aircraft asserted that the lead plaintiffs’ claims were not typical, that they could not adequately represent the class, and that individual issues and unique defenses would predominate over common issues. Again, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments. It reasoned that the lead plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently typical of the class because they were based on the same alleged wrongful conduct by Epic Aircraft. The court also determined that the lead plaintiffs would adequately represent the class, noting that any potential conflicts were speculative and did not undermine adequate representation. Accordingly, the court determined that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues, thereby justifying certification under Rule 23. For these reasons, the court granted class certification. In Bush, et al. v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20131 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024), the plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mislabeled its “Krud Kutter” cleaning products as “non-toxic” and “Earth friendly,” when the products actually can cause harm to humans, animals, and the environment, in violation of California consumer-protection laws. Id. at *2. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the court granted. The proposed class was defined as all residents of California who purchased the “Krud Kutter” cleaning products within four years of the complaint’s filing date. Id. First, the court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, considering the number of Californians who purchased the products in question. Next, the court determined that common questions of law or fact existed among class members, particularly regarding the alleged misrepresentations on the product labels. The court also ruled that a class action was the superior method for adjudicating the dispute, given that individual litigation would be impractical, and the class members had a shared interest in the outcome. Moreover, the court found that the defendant’s actions, or refusals to act, applied generally to the class, thereby making injunctive relief appropriate for the entire class. Regarding typicality, the court concluded that the lead plaintiff’s claims were sufficiently typical of those of the proposed class because they arose from the same alleged misrepresentations on the product labels. The court also determined that the lead plaintiff and his counsel adequately represented the proposed class’s interests without conflicts of interest. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. A group of customers in Lytle, et al. v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9722 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2024), filed a class action alleging that the defendant, Nutramax, violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by marketing Cosequin as promoting healthy joints in dogs, when in fact Cosequin did not provide the health benefits claimed. The district court certified a class of California purchasers of certain Cosequin products who were exposed to the allegedly misleading statements. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. On appeal, the defendant challenged the district court’s reliance upon the proposed damages model of the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, to find that common questions predominated as to injury. The defendant argued that Dr. Dubé did not apply the damages model to the actual proposed class to establish that the damages were susceptible to common proof. The defendant stated that

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