overruled on other grounds by In re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir.2006). Because the Court finds plaintiffs have satisfied all other Rule 23(a) requirements, and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements (see Section IV, infra), the Court will not reject the proposed classes solely due to aseertainability concerns. 7 . As discussed below (see Section IV.A.2, infra), plaintiffs have proposed suitable damages methodologies for establishing injury on a classwide basis—at least at this early stage of the litigation. Thus, cases in which courts decline to find common questions predominate as to injury because plaintiffs have not proposed suitable damages methodologies are inapposite. See, e.g., Acker-man v. Coca-Cola Co., 2013 WL 7044866, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2013) (<HOLDING>); Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010 WL
holding proof that each class member paid a premium for vitaminwater over another beverage would not be susceptible to generalized proof because plaintiffs did not propose a suitable methodology for establishing classwide damages holding that absent plaintiffs were not bound by a rule 23blb2 class action for money damages because the original class action court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs and did not provide them with an optout right holding that fdcpa statutory damages did not predominate over the requested equitable relief because given the defendants net worth and the number of class members each class member would be entitled to receive only 025 in statutory damages holding plaintiffs have not proposed a suitable damages methodology for establishing the critical elements of causation and injury on a classwide basis holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages