Stephens v. Gardner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that common issues did not predominate because \[p]laintiffs have not acknowledged any of these variations in states' unjust enrichment laws\
• finding plaintiff “greatly exceeded [the requirement], since more than ten thousand individuals purchased defendants’ services annually during each year of the proposed class period”
• finding plaintiffs’ reliance on representation by a dating service about finding “multiple matches” a common question because it’s “hard to imagine a reasonable consumer” seeking out a dating service not being swayed by one “touting its supposed matches”
• certifying national class alleging fraud claims where each state’s laws applied
• “The law applicable to [the] claims is the state unjust enrichment law of the jurisdiction where [defendants] allegedly made material misrepresentations to each prospective class member.”
• “Numerosity is presumed when the proposed national class includes more than forty members.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).