the differences among state statutes at the class certification stage, when the parties will have presented a thorough analysis of those differences. (See Tr. at 53 (“If your Honor is asking me is there something that compels you to decide it now, the answer is no.”).) 2. Unjust Enrichment Mirroring their argument in the consumer protection context, defendants also assert that all choice-of-law rules will point to the unjust enrichment law of the states where plaintiffs purchased pepper. (McCormick’s Mem. at 25-26.) Assuming that to be true for purposes of this motion, the Court must determine whether it is possible that the unjust enrichment laws of different states can be grouped. Plaintiffs have made an unjust enrichment claim on behalf of a nation 05, 513-14, 519 (D. Minn. 2014) (<HOLDING>); and Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int% Inc., 250
holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed holding that given creditors pro se status the complaint was substantially justified as it had a reasonable basis in fact and law and it would be unjust to penalize her for having only a lay persons knowledge of the law holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws holding that unjust enrichment laws differ substantially