"Wal-Mart Cuts Class Off at the Pass in Pet Food Case"

This article from Wednesday's Recorder provides an example of a federal case in which the court granted a defense motion to preemptively deny class certification. 

In Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-00682 (order filed 03/16/09), a district judge in Nevada construed the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"), and in denying certification, distinguished Wiener v. Dannon Co., ___ F.R.D. ___, 2009 WL 383650 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2009) (discussed in this blog post), in which a district judge in California granted class certification of UCL and CLRA claims based on alleged misrepresentations about the defendants' products.  The Nevada judge concluded that the Nevada Supreme Court would not adopt substantive elements of California law (specifically, presumed reliance based on materiality of the misrepresentation or nondisclosure) when construing the NDTPA.  Slip op. at 11-12.

The opinion also asserts that California law "require[s] individual proof of reliance and causation."  Id. at 13.  That's not correct.  Even if proof of reliance and/or causation is required under the UCL or CLRA, that proof is not necessarily, categorically, individualized, as the court seemed to conclude.  The opinion itself cites California case law (namely, the Supreme Court's decision in Vasquez) holding that reliance can sometimes be presumed on a classwide basis, even in cases involving common-law fraud. 

It's not clear why this decision warranted such extraordinary coverage in the Recorder.