Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. is a significant Ninth Circuit decision addressing the issue of ascertainability in class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This case forms a key part of the ongoing national debate over the proper requirements for identifying class members in consumer class actions. At its core, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. examines whether plaintiffs must demonstrate an administratively feasible method to identify class members before a court may certify a class.
Facts of Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
In Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., the plaintiffs consisted of consumers who purchased the defendant’s “100% Natural” Wesson brand cooking oil. The consumers alleged that the labeling of the cooking oil as “100% Natural” was false and misleading. On these grounds, they filed a class action lawsuit seeking certification of a class that included all consumers from various states who had purchased the product within the applicable statute of limitations for their state.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., the manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and seller of the cooking oil, opposed the class certification. Despite the defendant’s opposition, the district court granted certification of the class. ConAgra Foods then appealed this decision, challenging the district court’s failure to condition certification on plaintiffs providing an administratively feasible method to identify class members.
Issue
The central issue in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. was whether the district court erred in certifying the class without requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate an administratively feasible way to identify class members as a condition for class certification. Specifically, the question was whether Rule 23 mandates plaintiffs to prove an administratively manageable method for identifying class members before a court may grant certification.
Procedural History
After the district court certified the class action, ConAgra Foods appealed the certification order. The Ninth Circuit was tasked with resolving the disputed issue of ascertainability, a concept related to the ability to identify members of a proposed class with objective criteria or by administratively feasible means.
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Judgment
In Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not err by certifying the class without conditioning certification on plaintiffs’ showing of an administratively feasible method to identify class members. The court reasoned that Rule 23’s existing criteria sufficiently address concerns regarding manageability and protect the interests underlying the ascertainability doctrine.
Reasoning in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. reasoned that Rule 23 already contains the necessary protections to address issues related to the identification and management of class members. The court declined to impose a freestanding administrative feasibility requirement for ascertainability, finding that such a requirement would be inconsistent with the policies underlying Rule 23.
The court emphasized that adopting a separate administrative feasibility requirement could unduly restrict class actions, particularly in cases involving inexpensive consumer goods such as cooking oil. Imposing such a requirement would risk barring valid claims by making it harder for consumers to pursue collective redress.
The court joined the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits in declining to require an administratively feasible method for class member identification. It found that manageability concerns are properly addressed within Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority inquiry and should not be elevated to an independent ascertainability prerequisite.
Conclusion
Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. stands as a landmark case in the debate over class certification standards under Rule 23. The Ninth Circuit’s decision clarifies that plaintiffs need not prove an administratively feasible means of identifying class members to obtain certification. Instead, the court reaffirmed that Rule 23’s existing criteria adequately address class manageability.