300 F.R.D. 125
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege fraud and deceptive business practices by It’s Just Lunch International (IJL), a national matchmaking provider via franchises.
- Plaintiffs seek certification of a national class and a New York class, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment; Berkowitz adds NY GBL §§ 349 and 394-e claims plus unjust enrichment.
- Court finds IJL used a uniform sales script during initial interviews, telling prospective customers that IJL had multiple matches in mind.
- Choice-of-law for the national class is governed by New York law applying the law of the state where the misrepresentations occurred.
- Court certifies a national fraud class but denies certification of a national unjust enrichment class due to state-law variations.
- Court certifies a New York class for GBL § 349 and unjust enrichment claims and appoints class counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality and predominance for fraud claims | Bruno argues uniform misrepresentation via script affects all members. | IJL contends variations in practices preclude common questions. | Common questions predominate for fraud claims; class certified. |
| Commonality and predominance for national unjust enrichment claims | Unified proof can show IJL profited at members' expense. | State-law variations defeat predominance for unjust enrichment. | Predominance not met; national unjust enrichment class not certified. |
| Choice of law for national class claims | Uniform application of state law supports class treatment. | Multiple states' laws complicate certification. | New York choice-of-law rules apply; law of the state where misrepresentations occurred governs each member's claim. |
| New York class: commonality and predominance for GBL § 349 and unjust enrichment | Uniform policy of charging >$1,000 and deceptive practices predominate. | Disclosures and variations could defeat predominance. | Common issues predominate for both GBL § 349 and unjust enrichment; NY class certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (predominance and class certification guidance in multi-state disputes)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (materiality and class-wide proof in defrauding claims)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (commonality and common answers driving resolution)
- McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) (reliance may be proven through common evidence in fraud class actions)
- Seekamp v. It’s Huge, Inc., 2012 WL 860364 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (class certification of reliance on uniform misrepresentations)