EZ Seed grows grass. If plaintiffs can prove EZ Seed “does not grow at all” and thus is worthless, plaintiffs will be entitled to relief. See Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643, 660 (C.D.Cal.2014) (finding commonality satisfied where plaintiff argues defendants’ product is worthless because if defendants’ “products ... uniformly do not perform as advertised, then the putative class will be entitled to relief under Plaintiffs’ warranty and false advertising claims”). A common question with respect to the second theory of liability is whether the 50% thicker claim is false and/or misleading. The answer to this question is common to all class members, and is apt to drive the resolution of this litigation. See, e.g., Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL
holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim holding a common question in a consumer class action brought under the gbl is whether a products manufacturer defrauded purchasers by making a specific claim on the products label holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law