Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. - 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017)

Rule:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) is titled "Prerequisites" and provides: One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable ; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). This provision identifies the prerequisites to maintaining a class action in federal court. It does not mention "administrative feasibility."

Facts:

Plaintiffs were consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled "100% Natural." The "100% Natural" label appeared on every bottle of Wesson-brand oil throughout the putative class periods. Plaintiffs filed putative class actions arguing that the "100% Natural" label was false or misleading because Wesson oils were made from bioengineered ingredients (genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) that Plaintiffs contended were "not natural." Plaintiffs moved to certify eleven classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendant manufacturer of Wesson oils, ConAgra Foods, Inc., opposed the class certification on the ground that there would be no administratively feasible way to identify members of the proposed classes because consumers would not be able to reliably identify themselves as class members. As a result, ConAgra argued that the class was not eligible for certification. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, holding that, at the certification stage, it was sufficient that the class was defined by an objective criterion: whether class members purchased Wesson oil during the class period. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

To obtain class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, should the class representatives demonstrate that there was an administratively feasible means of identifying absent class members? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that in order to obtain Rule 23 certification, the plaintiffs in the instant case did not have to demonstrate an administratively feasible way to identify class members. According to the Court, the language of Rule 23 neither provided nor implied that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members was a prerequisite to class certification, and the policy concerns that motivated courts to adopt a separately articulated requirement were already addressed by the Rule itself.