United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
claims the Swagway hoverboard he bought burst into flames. He
attempts to bring a consumer class action. Defendant Swagway
moves to strike the class allegations, to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim, and to dismiss the claim for injunctive
relief. (DE 39.) For the following reasons, the Court denies
Motion to strike class allegations
to strike class allegations are disfavored. See Heller
Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294
(7th Cir. 1989) (involving motion to strike affirmative
defenses). Courts disfavor motions to strike class
allegations in part because a motion for class certification
is a more appropriate vehicle for consideration of the
relevant issues. See DuRocher v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, No. 1:13-cv-1570, 2015 WL 1505675,
at *4, n.2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2015).
because class action plaintiffs generally bear the burden of
satisfying Rule 23, but class action defendants often control
the information plaintiffs need to carry that burden. Hence,
the need for discovery. See Murdock-Alexander v. Tempsnow
Employment, No. 16-cv-5182, 2016 WL 6833961, at *3 (N.D.
Ill. Nov. 21, 2016).
class certification “generally involves considerations
that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising
the plaintiff's cause of action, ” striking class
allegations at the pleading stage is generally inappropriate.
Boatwright v. Walgreen Co., No. 10-cv-3902, 2011 WL
843898, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2011). “[M]otions to
strike class allegations are generally regarded as premature
because the shape and form of the class is to be given time
to evolve through discovery.” DuRocher, 2015
WL 1505675, at *4.
a court abuses its discretion by not allowing appropriate
discovery before deciding whether to certify a class. See
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 897 (7th Cir.
2011) (overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. All Am.
Painting, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015)).
to strike class allegations at the pleading stage are
generally only appropriate where it is clear from the
pleadings that the class claims are defective. See
Murdock-Alexander, 2016 WL 6833961, at *4; see also
Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557, 563
(7th Cir. 2011).
motion to strike class allegations (as opposed to a motion
for class certification) the moving defendant bears the
burden of persuasion. See Rysewyk v. Sears Holdings
Corp., No. 15-cv-4519, 2015 WL 9259886, at *8 (N.D.
Ill.Dec. 18, 2015).
Defendant Swagway has not persuaded the Court to strike the
class allegations at this stage. The Court cannot say
“it is obvious from the pleadings that no class action
can be maintained.” In re Yasmin & Yaz
(Drospirenone) Mktg., 275 F.R.D. 270, 274 (S.D. Ill.
might have an uphill climb on a motion to certify the class,
but striking at this point would be premature. Defendant may
re-raise its arguments later.
these reasons, and for other reasons articulated in
Plaintiff's response (DE 50), the Court denies the motion
to strike (DE 39).
Motions to dismiss
Standard for evaluating ...