Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that court had approved, as part of notice process, “posting a link to the full and summary settlement notices on websites maintain by the plaintiffs’ attorneys”
• collecting cases that show that “several courts have determined that the states’ unjust-enrichment laws vary in relevant respects”
• applying the laws of the states in which the products were purchased
• “[T]he interest analysis favors application of the consumer-fraud law of the state wherein each . . . [c]lass member purchased” the product
• New York choice-of-law rules “require[] the application of the law of the state of purchase to . . . [c]lass members’ claims for . . . unjust enrichment”
• decertifying á class where reliance element would requiré individualized inquiry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).