Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC
795 F.3d 654 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not impose a heightened "ascertainability" requirement that would obligate plaintiffs at the class certification stage to prove a reliable and administratively feasible method for identifying all class members.
Facts:
- Direct Digital, LLC marketed and sold a dietary supplement called Instaflex Joint Support.
- The product's labels and marketing materials claimed it would 'relieve discomfort,' 'improve flexibility,' 'increase mobility,' and 'support cartilage repair.'
- These materials also represented that Instaflex was 'scientifically formulated' and 'clinically tested for maximum effectiveness.'
- Vince Mullins purchased Instaflex for personal use.
- Mullins alleged that these claims were fraudulent because the primary ingredient, glucosamine sulfate, lacks scientific support for such benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Vince Mullins filed a lawsuit against Direct Digital, LLC in a federal district court, alleging consumer fraud.
- Mullins moved the court to certify a class of consumers who had purchased Instaflex.
- The district court granted the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
- Direct Digital, LLC, as the defendant, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.
- The Seventh Circuit granted the petition to resolve the legal question of the ascertainability requirement.
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(b)(3) impose a heightened ascertainability requirement that plaintiffs must demonstrate a 'reliable and administratively feasible' method for identifying class members at the certification stage?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
No, Rule 23(b)(3) does not impose a heightened ascertainability requirement beyond the traditional need for a class to be defined by clear, objective criteria. The policy concerns animating the heightened standard—administrative burdens, fairness to class members, and the defendant's due process rights—are already adequately addressed by the explicit requirements of Rule 23, particularly the superiority and manageability analysis under Rule 23(b)(3). The court reasoned that the traditional, or 'weak,' version of ascertainability correctly requires that a class definition not be vague, subjective, or a 'fail-safe' class defined by success on the merits. The court rejected the Third Circuit's more stringent approach, which requires proof of an 'administratively feasible' way to identify members, finding it has no basis in the text of Rule 23. Imposing such a requirement would effectively bar low-value consumer class actions where documentary proof of purchase is rare, thereby undermining the deterrent and compensatory purposes of the class action device. Concerns about manageability are better handled through the superiority analysis, which compares the class action to other available methods, and district courts retain discretion to manage claims administration, including through the use of affidavits, audits, and other tools.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a circuit split between the Seventh and Third Circuits on the standard for ascertainability in class actions. By rejecting the heightened requirement, the Seventh Circuit makes it easier to certify consumer class actions, particularly those involving low-cost goods where individual proof of purchase is uncommon. This ruling reinforces the view that manageability concerns should not be a threshold bar to certification but rather a factor to be weighed in the superiority analysis. The decision empowers district courts to use flexible, discretionary tools to manage class actions rather than dismissing them at the outset due to potential difficulties in identifying individual members.
Unlock the full brief for Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC