materials, and newspaper advertisements. Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 22. And Prudential required standardized materials to market securities such as the VAL policies. Second Am. Compl. at ¶24; Pis. Evid. Sub., E-l at 677 (Index of Pruco Direct Mail Letters and Ads, Including VAL Letters). g. Plaintiffs’ Claims that May Entail Establishing Reliance Do Not Undermine the Predominance of Common Issues 63. Some objectors have mistakenly argued that the need for individual plaintiffs to prove reliance for -based common law claims when the alleged omissions and misrepresentations are uniform and material and the class members acted in a manner consistent with reliance. See, e.g., Vasquez v. Superior Ct. of San Joaquin County, 4 Cal.3d 800, 94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 804-05, 484 P.2d 964, 972-73 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because reliance is an element
holding that where material misrepresentations are made to class members an inference of reliance arises to the entire class holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations holding class action is appro priate for california express warranty claims where material misrepresentations were made to all class members