M i l s t e i n A d e l m a n , L L P
2 8 0 0 D o n a l d D o u g l a s L o o p N o r t h S a n t a M o n i c a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 4 0 5
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that on September 24, 2012, or on such date as may be specified by the Court, in the courtroom of the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald,United States District Court for the Central District of California, 312 North SpringStreet, Los Angeles, California, Plaintiff Arlene Cabral (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and the proposed class, will and hereby does move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Plaintiff seeks to certify the following statewide class pursuant to Rules 23(a)and 23(b)(3):All persons residing in the State of California who purchased Supple for personal use and not for resale since December 2, 2007.
This motion is brought pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on grounds that class certification is proper.First, each of the four requirements under Rule 23(a) are met. Defendant hasconceded that it “does not contest numerosity.”
Declaration of Gillian L. Wade InSupport of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, (“Wade Decl.”) ¶54, Ex. 52.The commonality requirement is readily satisfied because the class members’ claimsdepend upon a common contention which is capable of classwide resolution. Further,Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the class – all arise from thesame injury, same conduct, and same standardized, material misleadingrepresentations by Defendant. Finally, Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy of representationrequirement is also satisfied. Plaintiff does not have any conflict of interest with the proposed class, and Plaintiff and her counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class.Second, class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). Regarding eachof the four causes of action alleged in the complaint, common issues predominate over any individual questions. Moreover, under the circumstances, a class action is asuperior method of adjudication.
Case 5:12-cv-00085-MWF-OP Document 35 Filed 07/17/12 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:910