Source: https://clw.girardgibbs.com/tag/typicality/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:02:57+00:00

Document:
Awhile back, we wrote about the practice of named plaintiffs asserting state-law claims arising under the laws of states in which no named plaintiff resides. Our last post looked at a decision out of the Northern District of California. More recently, a decision from the Southern District of New York has addressed the issue.
Although standing is generally a threshold issue for an Article III court to determine at the outset of the case, the Supreme Court created an exception for courts to address class certification prior to standing when certification issues are logically antecedent to Article III concerns.
There is a growing consensus among district courts that class certification is logically antecedent, where its outcome will affect the Article III standing determination, and the weight of authority holds that in general class certification should come first. In other words, when class certification is the source of the potential standing problems, class certification should precede the standing inquiry.
Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California recently certified a liability-only class in a case alleging defendants’ conduct created a “risk of exposure to the hepatitis A virus” through the sale of defective food products. See Petersen v. Costco Wholesale Co., 2016 WL 304299 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016).
Given that Plaintiffs allege that a single product sold only at Costco was defective, there is a common core of salient facts. See Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F. 3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Ninth Circuit, however, has made clear that “proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification.” Baker v. Microsoft Corp., 797 F.3d 607, 611 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
Indeed, there are several significant common issues here, including Plaintiffs’ contention that a single, specific lot of allegedly defective organic pomegranate seed has given rise to Plaintiffs’ claims. … Put differently, determining whether Defendants sold a defective product in this case will not require a searching individualized inquiry; rather, there will be significant common proof at issue in resolving Defendants’ liability.
In this district, a class complaint generally may survive a motion to dismiss on products a lead plaintiff did not purchase, so long as: (1) the basis for each of the claims is the same, (2) the products are closely related, and (3) the defendants are the same. Eberhart v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. CV 15-1761, 2015 WL 9581752, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2015); In re L’Oreal Wrinkle CreamMktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 12-03571, 2013 WL 6450701, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2013); Burke v. Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc., No. 12-6742, 2013 WL 5701489, at *3-4 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2013); Stewart v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 11-6174, 2012 WL 4168584, at *16 (D.N.J. June 26, 2012).
The alleged misrepresentation in this case is identical across all BMW vehicles included in the class: the use of “TwinPower Turbo” to describe single turbocharger engines.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.