Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
Holding that courts "accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party"
Holding that a district court erred in denying class certification by requiring individualized proof of reliance and causation, and remanding in light of In re Tobacco II Cases
Holding that in a class action, plaintiffs need only plead and prove actual reliance for the named plaintiffs and, if done, actual reliance will be presumed for the rest of the class
Holding that the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was premature and should have been denied because it was filed before the defendant filed an answer
Holding that a licensed automobile dealer's advertisement regarding a particular vehicle at a specific price constituted an offer in light of the California Vehicle Code, which rendered illegal the failure to sell the vehicle at the advertised price to any person while it remained unsold