OPINION & ORDER Defendants move to decertify both classes in this action for failure to maintain compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for decertification is denied, but the class definitions will be amended in order to bring them into conformity with Rule 23 and the relevant case law and to enable this action to proceed to trial.I. BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs are dissatisfied customers of defendants’ allegedly fraudulent dating service (“It’s Just Lunch” or “IJL”). This opinion assumes familiarity with the factual background and procedural history of the case as set forth in the Court’s previous opinions, cited below. In brief: plaintiffs filed this action on October 15, 2007. The Court subsequently granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, (Order, Doc. 48), as well as defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, (Order, Doc. 90). After discovery closed in December 2010, (see Order, Doc. 127), the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch, Int’l, No. 07-CV-9227, 2013 WL 1749590, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013) (“2013 Summ. J.”). Defendants sought to appeal from that summary judgment ruling, (Notice of Appeal, Doc. 168), but subsequently voluntarily withdrew the appeal, (see Mandate, Doc. 183).In the aftermath of these rulings, plaintiffs’ third and final amended complaint asserts three claims: (1) deceptive business practices in violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) Section 349, (2) fraud, and (3) unjust enrichment. (3AC, Doc. 169
226-239.) The fraud claim centers on alleged misrepresentations by defendants as to the nature and quality of the services plaintiffs purchased, while the GBL and unjust enrichment claims focus on defendants’ allegedly deceptive practices in evasion of GBL Section 394-c’s limits on fees for dating services.In May, 2014, the Court certified two classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): a “National Class” consisting of “all individuals who signed a membership contract with IJL and purchased IJL’s services on or after October 15, 2001″ and a “New York Class” consisting of “all individuals who became IJL clients in New York and who, on or after October 15, 2001, paid more than $1,000 for a year’s worth of IJL services.” Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch, Int’l, 300 F.R.D. 125,143,149 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“2014 Class Cert.”). Though plaintiffs originally sought relief on a variety of claims, the Court granted certification of the National Class on only one-fraud-and of the New York Class on two claims-common law unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants’ motion for leave to appeal from that decision. (Second Mandate, Doc. 214.)With the valuable assistance of Magistrate Judge Netburn, class counsel and defendants subsequently agreed to settle the case and the Court later granted preliminary approval of a revised settlement agreement on January 25, 2016. (See Preliminary Approval Order, Doc. 258.) The settlement administrator sent out class notices by mail and email in February and March 2016. (Hamer Decl., Doc. 323
