Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC

795 F.3d 654 (2015)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
795 F.3d 654 (2015)

Facts

Vince Mullins (plaintiff), a consumer and purchaser of Direct Digital, LLC’s (Direct Digital) (defendant) Instaflex Joint Support compound sought class certification in a federal district court for all consumers who purchased Instaflex within a specific period. Mullins alleged that Direct Digital fraudulently misrepresented that Instaflex relieved joint discomfort, and that Direct Digital’s label and marketing materials for Instaflex were fraudulent because they lacked scientific support and because the primary ingredient was the equivalent of a sugar pill. The district court found that the proposed class met the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and certified the class. In so doing, the court rejected Direct Digital’s argument that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) should be tested by a heightened ascertainability requirement beyond the recognized general ascertainability requirement that a class be defined clearly and by reference to objective criteria. Specifically, Direct Digital argued that class certification should be denied if the plaintiff cannot show a reliable and administratively feasible way to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class—and that affidavits from putative class members are legally insufficient to meet this requirement. Direct Digital further argued that imposing a heightened ascertainability requirement would yield administrative convenience, protect absent class members, avoid diluting the value of valid claims from fraudulently filed claims, and protect a defendant’s due-process interests. Direct Digital appealed the district court’s certification of the class.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hamilton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership