Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification in action that defendant fraudulently represented that its product (Instaflex) relieved joint discomfort, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. abused its discretion by not first finding under heightened “ascertainable” standard that proposed class members were sufficiently ascertainable by first examining any potential difficulty in identifying particular members of class and by evaluating ability of Dist. Ct. to distinguish fraudulent claims that might be submitted by putative class members. Ct. found that existing requirements under Rule 23 already address balance of interests when determining suitability of proposed class action in instant low value consumer action, where it might be unreasonable to expect consumers to have saved proof of purchase of defendant’s product. As such, Ct. would allow putative class members to submit affidavits to establish said purchases. It also rejected defendant’s insistence that class demonstrate as initial matter existence of administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fell within proposed class definition. Rather, Ct. emphasized that refusing to certify proposed class on manageability grounds should be matter of last resort.