fraud based claims undermines the predominance of common issues. The Court rejects the argument. Indeed, courts generally reject the argument that the issue of reliance undermines the predominance of common issues because reliance is an issue ions to the reliance requirement arises when the defendant fails to disclose material facts which it has a duty to disclose (nondisclosure).”); In re LILCO Sec. Litig., 111 F.R.D. 663, 668-69 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (“With respect to federal securities claims under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, issues of individual reliance are largely irrelevant [to class certification] because reliance is presumed if the statement or omission is material.”); In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modides Tax Shelter Invs. Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 251, 254-55 (C.D.Cal.1988) (<HOLDING>). In addition, reliance may be presumed for
holding that ute citizens applied to permit certification of hybrid misrepresentationomission claims because the court could not predict which theory would prevail before resolution of meiits holding that under wilkerson it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the defendant knew before trial the theory of criminality on which the government would proceed holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the named plaintiffs claims on summary judgment before reaching the issue of class certification holding that claim preclusion applies to small claims court adjudication and that judicial economy is not served by encouraging resolution of property claims in small claims court and other claims in district court