In affirming the certification of a class of investors, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that “a fraud case involving materially differing oral representations is not amenable to class treatment” where the “center of gravity” of the fraud “predominates over details of individual communications.” The court, citing California law, went on to noted that “common issues do not necessarily fail to predominate simply because reliance must be shown. While Mirkin v. Wasserman rejected a presumption of reliance on a class-wide basis when the same omission had not been communicated to each class member, the court continued to recognize that when the same material misrepresentations have been communicated, an inference of reliance may arise as to the entire class.” See Jenson v. Fiserv Trust Co., 256 Fed.Appx. 924, 2007 WL 4163889 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2007).