the focus of the litigation” will be “the alleged common course” of unfair conduct embodied in Wells Fargo’s alleged scheme to maximize overdraft fees through the reordering of transactions at account posting. Sargent v. Genesco, Inc., 75 F.R.D. 79, 86 (M.D.Fla.1977). Any analysis of this scheme will depend on evidence relating to the standardized account agreement and overdraft practices affecting all class members in a uniform manner. Predominance is “a test readily met in certain cases alleging consumer ... fraud,” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997), particularly where, as here, uniform practices and misrepresentations give rise to the controversy. See, e.g., In re U.S. Foodserv. Pricing Litig., 729 F.3d 108, 120 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Klay, 382 F.3d at 1259); Powers v.
holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage holding that class actions may be reasonably litigated through use of legitimate inferences based on the nature of the alleged misrepresentations at issue holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented arbitrators order showing issue had been litigated holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented supreme court opinion showing issue had been litigated