Tag Archives: consumer fraud

Individualized Causation and Reliance Defenses Render Class Representative Inadequate in the Northern District of Illinois

By Raj Chohan on Posted in Adequacy of Representation, Consumer Fraud, Injunctions, Predominance, Rule 23 Requirements, Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions
Class action defense practitioners routinely face uphill battles on the issue of individualized defenses for class members. However, these arguments should not be overlooked as tools to defeat class certification. Lipton v. Chattem, Inc., No. 11 C 2952, 2013 WL 489147 (N.D. Il. Feb. 8, 2013), a recent case out of the Northern District of … Continue Reading

Uncertainty Persists Regarding Insurance Companies’ Exemption from Liability Under California’s Unfair Competition Law

By Tina Amin on Posted in Consumer Fraud
The issue of whether insurance companies enjoy any special exemption from California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) liability has been a hotly litigated topic since the California Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988), and has been currently pending before the same court since it accepted review of … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Affirms That One State’s Laws Cannot Apply to a Nationwide Class and That a Presumption of Reliance Was Improper

Photo of Rodger EckelberryBy Rodger Eckelberry on Posted in Consumer Fraud, Rule 23 Requirements
In Mazza v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit reversed certification of a nationwide class of automobile consumers, rejecting the district court’s choice of law and predominance analyses.  Though a split-decision, the Mazza majority reinforced states’ individual interests and ability to regulate consumer transactions occurring within their … Continue Reading

Eighth Circuit Denies Certification of UCL Claim

By Brett Wall on Posted in Consumer Fraud, Standing
The Eighth Circuit’s 2010 decision in Avritt v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2010) denied class certification for, among other claims, a California Unfair Competition Law claim where class members could not prove through uniform evidence that the defendants engaged in misconduct.  Two subsequent California federal cases have, however, not been … Continue Reading
LexBlog