-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

Randall Davis, on Behalf of Himself and 

all Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

The Coca-Cola Company, 

Defendant. 

 

 Civil Action No. 

COMPLAINT and 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff hereby moves the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 

23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for certification of the following 

class: 

All purchasers of Coca-Cola’s Simply Orange in the Illinois from March 

2006 to the present (the “Class Period”). Excluded from the Class are 

Defendant, its parent, subsidiaries and affiliates, their directors and 

officers and members of their immediate families; also excluded are 

any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officers 

presiding over this action and the members of their immediate family 

and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action. 

Specifically excluded are Defendant, any entity in which the Defendant has a 

controlling interest and any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and their officers 

and directors. Also excluded are any members of the judiciary and the members of 

their immediate families and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

 In support of their motion, Plaintiff states the following: 

1. Plaintiff files this motion to protect their rights and the rights of 

putative class in light of the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Damasco v. Clearwire 

Case: 1:12-cv-02391 Document #: 7 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:38
-2-

Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff intends to file a fulsome memorandum 

in support of this motion on a schedule they hope to work out with opposing counsel 

and present it to the Court for its approval. 

2. The Class satisfies all of the statutory prerequisites for class 

certification. 

3. Joinder of all members of the Class is not practical, as it consists of 

thousands of persons who reside throughout Illinois. Rule 23(a)(1). The precise 

scope of the Class will be ascertained in discovery. 

4. There are common questions of fact and law that predominate over any 

issues affecting only individual Class members. As set forth more fully in Plaintiff’s 

Class Action Complaint, the claims of the Class arise from the same 

misrepresentation by Defendant regarding Simply Orange orange juice. Rule 

23(a)(2). There are questions of law and fact that are common to Plaintiff and all 

Class members, including, inter alia: 

(a) whether Coca-Cola was unjustly enriched by its conduct; 

(b) whether Coca-Cola breached an express warranty made to Plaintiff 

and the Class; 

(c) whether Coca-Cola advertises, or markets Simply Orange in a way 

that is false or misleading; 

(d) whether Simply Orange failed to conform to the representations, which 

were published, disseminated and advertised to Plaintiff and the 

Class; 

(e) whether Coca-Cola concealed from Plaintiff and the Class that Simply 

Orange did not conform to its stated representations; 

Case: 1:12-cv-02391 Document #: 7 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:39
-3-

(f) whether, by the misconduct set forth in this Complaint, Coca-Cola has 

engaged in unfair, fraudulent or unlawful business practices with 

respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of Simply Orange; 

(g) whether Coca-Cola violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and 

(h) whether, as a result of Coca-Cola’s misconduct as alleged herein, 

Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to restitution, injunctive 

and/or monetary relief and, if so, the amount and nature of such relief. 

5. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class, 

and have no interests antagonistic to the interests of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims 

are typical of the claims of the Class. By proving his claims, Plaintiff will prove the 

claims of the Class. Rule 23(a)(3) and (4). 

6. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel, experienced in the 

prosecution of class actions. Counsel has prosecuted and will continue to prosecute 

this action vigorously in the interests of Plaintiff and the Class. Rule 23(a)(4). 

7. Defendant has acted in a manner that is generally applicable to the 

class. 

8. This class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy, since 

(a) Common questions of law and fact overwhelmingly predominate over 

any individual questions that may arise, such that there would be 

enormous economies to the Court and the parties in litigating the 

common issues on a class-wide instead of a repetitive individual basis; 

(b) The size of each Class member’s relatively small claim is too 

insignificant to make individual litigation an economically viable 

alternative, such that as a practical matter there is no “alternative” 

means of adjudication to a class action; 

(c) Few Class members have any interest in individually controlling the 

prosecution of separate actions (any that do may opt out); 

Case: 1:12-cv-02391 Document #: 7 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:40
-4-

(d) Class treatment is required for optimal deterrence and compensation 

and for limiting the court-awarded reasonable legal expenses incurred 

by Class members; 

(e) Despite the relatively small size of individual Class members’ claims, 

their aggregate volume, coupled with the economies of scale inherent 

in litigating similar claims on a common basis, will enable this class 

action to be litigated on a cost-effective basis, especially when 

compared with repetitive individual litigations; and 

(f) No unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management 

of this class action insofar as Defendant’s liability turns on substantial 

questions of law or fact that are common to the Class and that 

predominate over any individual questions. 

 WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully pray for 

an order certifying the Class described herein, appointing Plaintiff as the 

representative of the Class and counsel as Class counsel, and for such further relief 

as the Court deems appropriate. 

DATED: March 30, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

RANDALL DAVIS, 

Class Plaintiff, 

 By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Leon

 

Jeffrey A. Leon 

Jamie E. Weiss 

COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 

513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 

Highland Park, IL 60035 

(847) 433-4500 

Richard J. Burke 

COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 

1010 Market Street, Suite 660 

St. Louis, Missouri 63101 

Case: 1:12-cv-02391 Document #: 7 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:41
-5-

David M. Sternfield 

LAW OFFICES OF 

DAVID M. STERNFIELD, LLC 

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class

Case: 1:12-cv-02391 Document #: 7 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:42