because the claim involved actions of many different insurance agents with different training and materials); Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966, 101 Cal. Rptr.3d 37, 48 (2009) (distinguishing facts from Tobacco II by noting that the UCL did not “authorize an award for injunctive relief and/or restitution on behalf of a consumer who was never exposed in any way to an allegedly wrongful business practice”). Other courts failed to certify the class because they rejected the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. See, e.g., Campion v. Old Republic Home Prot. Co., 272 F.R.D. 517, 533 (S.D.Cal.2011) (finding the plaintiffs theory of recover “too speculative to entitle' [the class members] to restitution”); In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 83,101 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Because individualized proof of reliance and
holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident holding that the plaintiffs proposed drug comparator was invalid holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend