WL 860364, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2012) (certifying a breach of contract class based on alleged deceptive practices); Taylor v. Am. Bankers Ins. Grp., Inc., 267 A.D.2d 178, 178, 700 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1st Dep’t 1999) (affirming certification of a breach of contract claim when “the predominant focus of this litigation is defendants’ general practice of offering, in prominent print, ostensibly easily avail arranty claims under California law, common questions predominate and class action treatment is appropriate. See, e.g., Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., 2014 WL 6483216, at *17-18 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) (certifying class claiming violation of California’s express warranty law when products were allegedly falsely labeled organic); Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658, 669 (C.D.Cal.2009) (<HOLDING>). f. California Unjust Enrichment Claim To
holding that for a class action to be maintained all class members must have a common and undivided interest in the property or matter involved holding class action is appro priate for california express warranty claims where material misrepresentations were made to all class members holding that where material misrepresentations are made to class members an inference of reliance arises to the entire class recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification