Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co.

44 Citing cases

  1. Allegra v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.

    17-CV-5216 (PKC) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2021)

    However, “[t]he Second Circuit has emphasized that Rule 23 should be given liberal rather than restrictive construction, and it seems beyond peradventure that the Second Circuit's general preference is for granting rather than denying class certification.” Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Espinoza v. 953 Assocs. LLC, 280 F.R.D. 113, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)); accord Merryman v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 15-CV-9185 (CM), 2018 WL 1621495, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018). “Accordingly, ‘if there is to be an error made, let it be in favor and not against the maintenance of the class action, for it is always subject to modification should later developments during the course of the trial so require.'”

  2. Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co.

    15-CV-2995(EK)(JAM) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    As the then-presiding judge noted at the class certification stage, “the Hasemann, Greene [now Wilkerson], and Manemeit Complaints are largely identical.” Hasemann v. Gerber Prod. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Citations to the “Complaint” therefore will be to the Hasemann complaint, unless otherwise noted.

  3. Andrews v. Sazerac Co.

    23-cv-1060 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025)

    ” See Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). In other words, there's no need to determine whether individual consumers were actually deceived; that's the whole point of the objective “reasonable consumer” test, which doesn't ask whether each consumer in fact found the product misleading.

  4. St. Francis Holdings, LLC v. MMP Capital, Inc.

    20-CV-4636 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.”Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977, 985-86 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing City First Mortg. Corp. v. Barton, 988 So.2d 82, 86 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)); Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (same). The Florida Supreme Court has noted that “deception occurs if there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment.” Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Grp., Inc., 480 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003));

  5. Rusoff v. The Happy Grp.

    21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2024)

    Sections 349 and 350 of the New York GBL do not “require proof that a consumer actually relied on the misrepresentation.” Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citations and footnote omitted). California warranty claims likewise require no such showing.

  6. Passman v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

    671 F. Supp. 3d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 12 times
    In Passman v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 671 F.Supp.3d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), the court rejected plaintiffs' conjoint analysis because of insufficient evidence that a substantial number of consumers ever saw the purported misrepresentation.

    Thus, the inquiry is susceptible to classwide proof: In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a consumer fraud case, she must establish that the statement at issue was misleading to a reasonable consumer. See Hasemann v. Gerber Prod. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (noting that the relevant question under Sections 349 and 350 is "whether the deception could likely have misled someone, and not, whether it in fact did"). Evidence that actual consumers, in fact, interpreted the challenged statement in line with "the plaintiffs' proffered theory of deception" is relevant to, and may be necessary for, the ultimate conclusion that a reasonable consumer would have been deceived.

  7. Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co.

    15-CV-2995(EK)(RER) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2023)

    The Honorable Margo K. Brodie, to whom this action was previously assigned, certified two subclasses in 2019: one for New York purchasers of Good Start Gentle, the other for Florida purchasers. Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

  8. Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

    620 F. Supp. 3d 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 19 times
    Finding sufficient allegation of Article III injury based on plaintiffs' allegation that they "paid increased costs - a 'price premium' - for the products as a result of the misrepresentation" by defendant as to the "unique quality about its products - that they enabled access to a 'growing' library of on-demand fitness classes"

    Because the test is objective and turns upon the reasonable consumer, "reliance is not at issue, [and] the individual reason for purchasing a product becomes irrelevant and subsumed under the reasonable consumer standard, i.e., whether the deception could likely have misled someone, and not, whether it in fact did." Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (stating proposition in context of considering theory of injury that putative class members paid a price premium); cf. Randolph v. Mondelez Global LLC, 2022 WL 953301, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) (explaining that "since the test for deception under sections 349 and 350 is an objective one, and because reliance is not an element of the claims, the plaintiff's personal expectations do not establish that 'a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances' would be misled by the label." (quoting Oswego, 623 N.Y.S.2d 529, 647 N.E.2d at 745)).

  9. Francisco v. NY Tex Care, Inc.

    19-CV-1649 (PKC) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff had insufficiently pled an “injury” flowing from the lack of wage statements and notices “and the Supreme Court has made clear that a statutory violation alone, without a tangible injury or close parallel to a traditional cause of action, does not constitute an injury that can be recognized by the federal courts”

    In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108, 117 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). However, “[t]he Second Circuit has emphasized that Rule 23 should be given liberal rather than restrictive construction, and it seems beyond peradventure that the Second Circuit's general preference is for granting rather than denying class certification.” Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Espinoza v. 953 Assocs. LLC, 280 F.R.D. 113, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)); accord Merryman v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 15-CV-9185 (CM), 2018 WL 1621495, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018). “Accordingly, ‘if there is to be an error made, let it be in favor and not against the maintenance of the class action, for it is always subject to modification should later developments during the course of the trial so require.'” In re Kind LLC “Healthy & All Natural” Litig., 337 F.R.D. 581, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (quoting Green v. Wolf Corp., 406 F.2d 291, 298 (2d Cir. 1968)); accord In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 312 F.R.D. 332, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

  10. Simmons v. Ford Motor Co.

    592 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Because of this, multiple courts have held that "claims under both [FDUTPA and GBL § 349 ] meet the predominance requirement." Hasemann v. Gerber Prods. Co. , 331 F.R.D. 239, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Ford counters that "Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be certified because, whether any reasonable consumer would have found the information important, and actually read the warranty and was deceived by it, can only be determined through individual inquiry."