in Patterson rejected reliance based on circumstantial evidence of the conduct of class members. Patterson, however, neither addresses nor rejects Chisolm or the use of circumstantial evidence of reliance. 28 . See Rodriguez, 156 F.R.D. at 117 (plaintiff may "use expert testimony to develop the inference that a student otherwise unable to afford an education is induced to enroll in school by being offered a student loan”). 29 . By Order entered on the same date as this opinion, the Court has severed Defendant Reliance’s automobile and general liability insurance premium counterclaim from this action. The workers’ compensation premium counterclaim remains in the suit. 30 . In its recitation of facts in its first amended counterclaim, Reliance asserts that Wall Street "benefitt .1986) (<HOLDING>). 35 . In re Home Indem. Co., No. 94 CIV. 3173,
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranf erguson holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that the gentry ruleruns afoul of the faa and is thus preempted holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranferguson