Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
96 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 762, 2017 WL 24618, 844 F.3d 1121 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class action lawsuits, does not contain a freestanding prerequisite requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate an administratively feasible method for identifying all absent class members at the certification stage.
Facts:
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. manufactured, marketed, and sold Wesson-brand cooking oils.
- Every bottle of Wesson oil sold during the relevant period was labeled '100% Natural.'
- Robert Briseno and other consumers (Plaintiffs) purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products bearing this label in eleven different states.
- Plaintiffs alleged the '100% Natural' label was false and misleading because the oils were produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
- As cooking oil is a low-cost, frequently purchased consumer good, most purchasers do not retain receipts or have specific memories of their individual purchases, making it difficult to prove membership in the consumer class.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Briseno and other consumers filed putative class actions against ConAgra Foods, Inc. in various federal district courts.
- The cases, which asserted state-law claims, were consolidated into a single action in a U.S. District Court.
- Plaintiffs moved for certification of eleven statewide classes of consumers who had purchased Wesson oils.
- ConAgra opposed class certification, arguing that there was no administratively feasible method to identify the members of the proposed classes.
- The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part, certifying eleven statewide classes for damages under Rule 23(b)(3).
- ConAgra sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal of the district court's class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 require plaintiffs seeking class certification to demonstrate that there is a separate, freestanding 'administratively feasible' method for identifying all absent class members?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedland
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a separate, freestanding 'administratively feasible' method for identifying class members as a prerequisite to class certification. The plain language of Rule 23(a) lists four exclusive prerequisites for certification—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy—and does not mention administrative feasibility. Imposing such a requirement would contradict the canon of statutory construction 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' and would render the 'manageability' factor in Rule 23(b)(3)(D) superfluous. The Supreme Court's decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor warns against judicial invention of requirements not present in the text of the Federal Rules. Furthermore, the policy concerns underlying the administrative feasibility requirement—such as managing the litigation, protecting absent class members, and safeguarding defendants' due process rights—are already adequately addressed by the existing criteria within Rule 23, particularly the 'manageability' component of the superiority analysis.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a significant circuit split, aligning the Ninth Circuit with the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in rejecting the Third Circuit's more stringent 'ascertainability' doctrine, which includes an administrative feasibility requirement. The ruling lowers the barrier for certifying consumer class actions, especially for low-cost products where individual records of purchase are rare. By refusing to add a non-textual hurdle to Rule 23, the court preserves the class action mechanism as a tool for vindicating small-value claims that would otherwise go unremedied. This precedent directs lower courts to handle identification and manageability issues within the existing flexible framework of Rule 23(b)(3) rather than using them as a reason to deny certification at the outset.
Unlock the full brief for Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.