Opinion ID: 718631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injury-in-fact, Proximate Cause, Reliance, Affirmative Defenses, and Compensatory Damages

Text: 22 Using the same methodology as it did for the core liability issues, the district court refused to certify the issues of injury-in-fact, proximate cause, reliance, affirmative defenses, and compensatory damages, concluding that the issues are so overwhelmingly replete with individual circumstances that they quickly outweigh predominance and superiority. Id. at 556. Specifically, the court found that whether a person suffered emotional injury from addiction, whether his addiction was caused by the defendants' actions, whether he relied on the defendants' misrepresentations, and whether affirmative defenses unique to each class member precluded recovery were all individual issues. As to compensatory damages and the claim for medical monitoring, the court concluded that such claims were so intertwined with proximate cause and affirmative defenses that class certification would not materially advance the individual cases.