Judge Huck's Yoplus class certification decision was closely watched, and no doubt gave some indigestion.
Insert groan here.
Yet the 11th, via Judge Fay, has affirmed its reasoning and Judge Huck's "scholarly" analysis, though it was kicked back to remove any reliance element from the class definition:
The district court’s analysis in its Order on Motion for Class Certification is sound and in accord with federal and state law. The reasoning reflected therein is well within the parameters of Rule 23’s requirements for certification of a class. And, if the definition of the class had been in accord with the legal analysis, we would have readily affirmed.1 However, at the end of the district court’s Order, it defined the class in a manner which seems to conflict with its earlier sound analysis. In its analysis, the district court repeatedly stated that a plaintiff need not prove reliance on the allegedly false statement to recover damages under FDUTPA, but rather a plaintiff must simply prove that an objective reasonable person would have been deceived. And, this is correct. Notwithstanding this analysis, the district court went on to define the class as “all persons who purchased Yo-Plus in the State of Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit.” Order at 21 (emphasis added). The class definition limits the class to those who purchased YoPlus “to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit,” which takes into account individual reliance on the digestive health claims. Had the district court defined the class in a manner which did not take individual reliance into account, such would be consistent with the district court’s earlier analysis. Thus, we vacate the Order certifying the class and remand to the district court for further consideration.Seriously, what kind of maroon believes that "magic yogurt" somehow improves your digestive health?
(Wait a second, people are taking Donald Trump's run for the Presidency seriously. On second thought, don't answer that.)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét