Block’s Challenges to Typicality Sample Clauses

Block’s Challenges to Typicality. Block challenges Plaintiffs’ proof of the typicality requirement in several respects. Initially, the Court notes that Block has advanced several arguments which are not directed to any specific class certification factor, but rather, are in actuality merits arguments. The Court will discuss these arguments now. Block contended at oral argument that it did not receive license fees from its franchisee offices, as opposed to Block-owned offices. If true, this would significantly reduce the size of the Class, since the vast majority of Block’s offices in Alabama are franchisee-owned. However, whether Block received license fees from its franchisee offices is a merits issue, not a certification issue, and hence is not germane at this stage of the proceedings. Whether Plaintiffs can actually prove their claims against Block, one element of which is whether Block received license fees for its RALs during the Class Periods, is not an issue during class certification. Pursuant to Ala, Code 1975 § 6-5-641 (c), all discovery directed to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims has been stayed. Thus, whether Block received license fees from its franchisee offices has not been fully developed, and is not ripe for adjudication in any event. Moreover, the Court notes that the deposition of H▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Notice of Filing, Exh. 9, p. 135) indicates that Block did receive license fees from its franchisee-owned offices.6 Similarly, whether Block received any license fees before 1992 is a merits issue, and has not been fully developed because merits discovery has been stayed. Block also contends that it, as opposed to its franchisees, did not participate in pooling agreements in Alabama during the Class Period. Whether or not Block profited directly from the pooling agreements is a merits question. Moreover, even if only Block’s franchisees directly participated in pooling agreements, that does not necessarily mean that Block did not ultimately profit from those pooling agreements, which could constitute a breach of the fiduciary duty alleged by Plaintiffs, Again, this is a merits question, which has not been fully developed. Block also contends that the breach of contract claim is defective because Plaintiffs’ Complaint supposedly shows that Plaintiffs have not been damaged in this respect. This contention is based upon the following: with respect to their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs allege that had Block not received license fees from lending i...