Berkheimer v. Pennsylvania Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “differ- enees in Plaintiffs’ perceptions and knowledge about Kashi products, as well as differences in their preferences and reasons for purchasing Kashi products, [did not] render them atypical”
• certifying a class of \all [California] customers who purchased Kashi products during the class period that were labeled as containing 'Nothing Artificial.' \
• stating that proof of materiality is to be determined by the trier of fact at trial, but that plaintiffs at the class certification stage still must show that materiality is a “common question of fact suitable for treatment in a class action.”
• finding the plaintiff’s quasi-contract claim’s common issues 17 predominated over individual issues for a California class
• rejecting nationwide class for due process concerns but certifying class of California consumers
• “The predominance analysis under Rule 23(b) is more .stringent than the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).