Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Inc., 270 F.R.D. 150, 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “An identifiable class exists if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria. Where any criterion is subjective, e.g., state of mind, the class is not ascertainable.” Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 264 F.R.D. 76, 97 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (internal quotation omitted). Pearson appears to argue that the class is not sufficiently ascertainable because the Court will have to make a determination about the merits of each claim in deciding whether a particular individual is a class member, that is, whether Pearson exceeded the print run. Of course, the mere fact that class membership overlaps with an element of the plaintiffs legal claim does not mean that the class is not ascertainable. See Friedman-Katz, 270 F.R.D. at 154-55 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); Noble v. 93 Univ. Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a credit card arbitration provision presented in a takeitorleaveitmanner was not unconscionable (B) holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable (C) holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable (D) holding that a class of individuals whose receipts contained more than the last five digits of their credit card number or the expiration date of their credit card number was ascertainable even though these criteria were also elements of the plaintiffs legal claim (E) holding that the plaintiffs were not covered by the flsa by virtue of the plaintiffs purchase of items at local stores using their employers credit card
Output (English): holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable