Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc.
297 F.R.D. 561
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Consumer class action alleging Capatriti oil labeled 100% Pure Olive Oil actually contained pomace oil.
- Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for nationwide class and New York/New Jersey subclasses.
- Claims include breach of express/implied warranties, NJCFA, NYGBL §349, and fraud/negligent misrepresentation.
- Conte expert describes pomace oil as fundamentally different and cheaper than true olive oil.
- Court previously granted class certification in a December 11, 2013 order; this memorandum addresses related issues.
- Defendant seeks stay pending appeal of the certification order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are satisfied for certification. | Ebin/Jenkins: common questions predominate; ascertainability feasible. | Kangadis: individualized inquiries predominate; ascertainability uncertain. | Yes; predominance and ascertainability satisfied for proposed classes. |
| Whether the class is sufficiently ascertainable by objective criteria. | Weisbrot methods identify class members via receipts, tin IDs, or affidavits. | Snapple-like concerns show ascertainability problems. | Ascertainability satisfied; certification upheld. |
| Whether typicality is met given varied state standards. | Lead plaintiffs’ and class claims arise from same misrepresentation and conduct. | Variations in oil content and testing undermine typicality. | Typicality satisfied based on common course of conduct and uniform misrepresentation. |
| Whether common proof can establish NJCFA/ NYGBL claims and express/implied warranty breaches. | Uniform misrepresentation of 100% Pure Olive Oil supports class-wide liability. | Need individualized injury proof and damages calculations. | Predominance satisfied; common proof supports claims across jurisdictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.2001) (class actions require predominance over individual issues)
- Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir.2002) (fraud claims with uniform misrepresentations suitable for class treatment)
- Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 876 A.2d 253 (N.J. 2005) (common-law fraud elements across jurisdictions; ascertainability context)
- Kellogg v. Wyeth, 762 F.Supp.2d 694 (D.Vt.2010) (state-law fraud elements largely uniform; predominance for class actions)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct.2011) (commonality requires that class members share the same injury)
- Lewis Tree Serv. Inc. v. Lucent Tech., 211 F.R.D. 228 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (ascertainability and manageability considerations in class certification)