Allegra v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.

Allegra v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Eyeglasses Manufacturing

B. AccuFit

C. LensCrafters' Alleged Misrepresentations about AccuFit

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. CLASS CERTIFICATION

II. EXPERT TESTIMONY

III. PLAINTIFFS' CLASS CLAIMS

A. New York General Business Law

B. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

C. California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and

Consumer Legal Remedies Act

D. Quasi-Contract / Unjust Enrichment

E. Fraudulent Omission

DISCUSSION

I. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

A. Rule 23 (a)

1. Numerosity

2. Commonality

3. Typicality

4. Adequacy of Representation

a. Class Representatives

b. Class Counsel

5. Ascertainability

B. Rule 23(b)(2)

 [*4] C. Rule 23(b)(3) — Predominance

1. Uniform Exposure to a Consistent Misrepresentation

a. FDUTPA and GBL

b. UCL, FAL, and CLRA

c. Fraudulent Omission

d. Plaintiffs' Evidence of Exposure

(1) Exposure during the AccuFit Customer Experience

(2) Exposure Through Multi-Channel Marketing Campaign

e. A Consistent Misrepresentation

2. Common Elements of New York, California, and Florida Class Claim

a. Deceptive Act

(1) Dan Riall

(2) Dr. Keith Walter

(3) Plaintiff Has Demonstrated Common Proof of the Alleged Deceptiv

b. Materiality

c. Injury or Causation

3. Damages

a. The Marketing Message Apportionment Methodology

b. The Butler/Eichmann Model

(1) The Butler Conjoint Analysis

(2) The Eichmann Market Simulation

(3) LensCrafters' Critiques of the Butler/Eichmann Model

c. Comcast

4. Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Omissions Claim

5. Unjust Enrichment Claim

6. Rule 23(b)(3) — Superiority

CONCLUSION

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Thomas Allegra, Yesenia Ariza, Mariana Elise Emmert, Stuart Rogoff, Gracelynn Tenaglia, and Melissa Verrastro (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action against Defendant Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as LensCrafters ("LensCrafters") alleging false and misleading statements by [*5]  LensCrafters about its AccuFit system, which induced customers to purchase and/or caused them to overpay for LensCrafters' prescription eyeglasses in violation of California, Florida, and New York law. (See generally Second Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SACC"), Dkt. 50.) Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes consisting of all residents of New York, Florida, and California "who purchased prescription eyeglasses from LensCrafters after being fitted with AccuFit from September 5, 2013 to present" (Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Class Cert. Mot."), Dkt. 238, at 25); (2) Defendant's motion to exclude in full five of Plaintiffs' experts (Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts ("Def.'s Mot. to Exclude"), Dkt. 249, at 1); and (3) Plaintiffs' motion to exclude in part or in full the testimony by four of Defendant's experts (Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony ("Pl.'s Mot. to Exclude"), Dkt. 241, at 1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for class certification, grants in part and denies in part LensCrafters' [*6]  motion to exclude, and defers ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to exclude.

BACKGROUND

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.