Callantine v. 4E Brands North America LLC, 3:20-cv-00801

Plaintiff Melody Callantine brought a class action under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA) against 4e Brands North America, LLC, alleging tainted Blumen hand sanitizer sales.
The action claims that 4e sold sanitizer labeled as safe and containing 70% ethyl alcohol, when it actually contained harmful methanol.
The issue arose during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an ethanol shortage, leading 4e to new suppliers and inadequate product testing.
Ms. Callantine, on behalf of herself and similarly situated Indiana residents, sought class certification covering those who bought methanol-contaminated Blumen hand sanitizer within two years before the suit.
4e opposed class certification, arguing issues with class definition, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.
The court applied Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) standards to determine class suitability, reviewing plaintiff’s evidence and both parties’ competing claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class Definition/Ascertainability	Class clearly, objectively defined by purchase of methanol-contaminated sanitizer	Definition is overbroad and "fail-safe," requiring individualized methanol testing	Class is ascertainable, not "fail-safe," and objective
Numerosity	Discovery shows thousands were affected by sanitizer sales	Claims of size are speculative/conclusory and not proven	Numerosity established based on records, judicial estoppel
Commonality	All class members exposed to identical deceptive conduct	Individualized issues of reliance and injury defeat commonality	Common questions predominate—labeling/deception are central
Typicality	Claims are typical; all members injured by deceptive product	Plaintiff/children allegedly suffered unique injuries, not typical	Claims typical; IDCSA allows actual/statutory damages
Adequacy	Lead plaintiff’s interests align with class; no conflict	Potential differences in injury may create divergence	No material conflicts; adequacy met
Predominance & Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3))	Common liability/damages issues outweigh individual ones; class action superior	Too many individual questions, damages vary across class	Predominance and superiority satisfied
Appointment of Class Counsel	Firm experienced and qualified	Did not contest	Counsel appointed

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (outlines Rule 23(a) class certification standards)
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits questions only relevant as to Rule 23 prerequisites; commonality/predominance under Rule 23(b)(3))
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (all prerequisites of Rule 23(a) must be established)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (predominance assessed via relation of common/individual issues)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (Rule 23(b)(3) class action requirements; adequacy)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (damages must be susceptible to classwide measurement for certification)
Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) (differences in damages do not preclude class certification)
Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) (ascertainability of class requirements)