on Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010). That case involved

a claim under Hawaii's Deceptive Practices Act, a counterpart to California's UCL. There, the

plaintiffs alleged that representations in the defendant's sales and marketing brochures were

misleading and deceptive in that the defendant "represents that its annuities protect its clients from the risks of the stock market and that Midland fails to include in its documentation facts necessary to

inform prospective purchasers of the true risks, possible detriments, and unsuitability of Midland's

long-term annuities for seniors." Id. at 1090. The district court denied class certification on the

ground that individual issues of reliance would predominate over any common issues. The Ninth

Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation of Hawaii law, and instead found that reliance

could be shown by an objective, reasonable person standard. Id. at 1093. In light of that legal error,

the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class certification.

Plaintiff likens her case to Yokoyama, specifically that portion of the case that describes the

plaintiff's claim as one that relies exclusively on written materials. However, there is a critical

distinction between the facts of Yokoyama and the facts of this case: In Yokoyama, the defendant

"obligate[d] its brokers, with respect to each sale, ... to certify that nothing was said that is inconsistent

with Midland's brochures and disclosure forms." Id. at 1090. In contrast, Defendants here imposed

no such obligation on their loan officers or the independent brokers. On the contrary, Defendants

assert their brokers and loan officers "provided the supposedly omitted information to each borrower

in oral communications or in other loan documents that varied from borrower to borrower." (Opp'n

to Mot. at 11) (citations omitted).