Tietsworth v. Sears

Holding that omitted information about a defect in washing machines that caused consumers to pay large repair bills was material under CLRA

Clark v. McDonald's Corp.

Holding that "deterrence from visiting a place of public accommodation known to be out-of-compliance with the ADA can constitute an actual and present injury as surely as tomorrow's visit to the same location can constitute a threatened and imminent one."

Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.

Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

Zarichny v. Complete Payment Recovery Servs., Inc.

Holding the plaintiff's putative TCPA class was "fail-safe" because it was "comprised of those people who received . . . telephone calls without the recipient's 'prior express consent,'" rendering it not readily ascertainable (citing 47 U.S.C. § 227(b))

Mladenov v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Holding plaintiff failed to plead an ascertainable loss based on the general allegation that plaintiffs "would not have purchased the . . . products . . . or would have purchased alternative products in absence of Defendant's misleading advertisements" because plaintiff supplied "no basis for valuing the products they received as opposed to the products they were promised"

Gray v. BMW of North America, LLC

Finding that the allegation that "BMW advised dealers to make temporary repairs to ensure that the manifestation of the defects occurred outside the warranty period, thereby shifting financial responsibility for the defect onto consumers" created the plausible inference of active concealment

Weske v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc.

Explaining that motions to strike are extremely disfavored

Uniloc U.S.A., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Wilson v. Consol. Rail Corp. (In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases)

Noting that a court "should grant a motion to strike class allegations only if the inappropriateness of class treatment is evident from the face of the complaint and from incontrovertible facts"

Merino v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Rejecting arguments on motion to strike class allegations that "beg[] an unanswered question" because "no discovery has been exchanged, and the[] argument seems to presuppose what discovery shows (or doesn't show)"

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 23 - Class Actions

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim

Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory