DOCSLIB.ORG

Ascertainability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ascertainability Angela M. Spivey McGuireWoods LLP 1230 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 443-5720 Angela M. Spivey is managing partner of the McGuireWoods LLP Atlanta office. She defends and counsels food companies on a host of issues, including implementation of recalls, defense of widespread international outbreaks and resulting civil litigation, defense of corporations and individuals in OCI criminal investigations, and regulatory oversight and compliance. Ms. Spivey is a national speaker at various food industry group conferences and has first-chair trial experience before state and federal courts on matters ranging from product liability, personal injury, contract disputes, and business torts. Ascertainability Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................5 II. Briseño v. Conagra Foods, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Opening Brief .................................................................................................................................................6 III. Briseño v. Conagra Foods, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Answering Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees .........................................................................................................................81 IV. Briseño v. Conagra Foods, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Reply Brief ..................................................................................................................................................171 V. Briseño v. Conagra Foods, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Opinion ..........................209 Ascertainability ■ Spivey ■ 3 Ascertainability I. Introduction The federal courts of appeals have adopted different approaches regarding whether and to what extent a class must be ascertainable to be certified. The following materials provide context for an overview of the current state of the law on ascertainability and practical suggestions for defeating class certification under the various standards. Ascertainability ■ Spivey ■ 5 Case: 15-55727, 09/21/2015, ID: 9691076, DktEntry: 13, Page 1 of 75 II. Briseño v. Conagra Foods, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Opening Brief No. 15-55727 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit __________________ ROBERT BRISEÑO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. _________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (The Honorable Margaret M. Morrow) Case No. 2:11-cv-05379 __________________ APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF __________________ A. Brooks Gresham R. Trent Taylor Laura E. Coombe MCGUIREWOODS LLP MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor 800 E. Canal St. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (310) 315-8291 Telephone: (804) 775-1182 Angela M. Spivey E. Rebecca Gantt MCGUIREWOODS LLP MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1230 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 2100 World Trade Center Atlanta, GA 30309 101 W. Main St., Suite 9000 Telephone: (404) 443-5720 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 640-3731 Counsel for Defendant-Appellant ConAgra Foods, Inc. 6 ■ Class Actions ■ July 2017 Case: 15-55727, 09/21/2015, ID: 9691076, DktEntry: 13, Page 2 of 75 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Defendant-Appellant ConAgra Foods, Inc., hereby states, by and through counsel, that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. Dated: September 21, 2015 Respectfully submitted, MCGUIREWOODS LLP /s/ A. Brooks Gresham A. Brooks Gresham Counsel for Defendant-Appellant ConAgra Foods, Inc. -i- Ascertainability ■ Spivey ■ 7 Case: 15-55727, 09/21/2015, ID: 9691076, DktEntry: 13, Page 3 of 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ORAL ARGUMENT ................................ xii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.............................................................................. 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 8 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 10 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................... 11 II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE PUTATIVE CLASSES ARE ASCERTAINABLE ..................................... 12 A. Ascertainability is a threshold requirement for certification ............. 13 B. A class is only ascertainable where its members can be determined in an objectively verifiable and administratively feasible manner ................................................................................... 14 C. The district court abused its discretion by relying solely on the proffered class definition to hold that the classes’ members were ascertainable .............................................................................. 18 III. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT HAVE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES THAT ARE TYPICAL OF THOSE OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS ................................................................. 23 IV. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT COMMON QUESTIONS PREDOMINATE OVER INDIVIDUAL ONES ............................................................................................................ 27 A. Individual issues predominate with respect to materiality because there is no reliable classwide method of proof ..................... 28 1. Plaintiffs must show they can prove materiality to avoid individualized issues of reliance and causation ....................... 29 2. The district court erroneously relied on surveys that do not support a finding of classwide materiality ......................... 31 -ii- 8 ■ Class Actions ■ July 2017 Case: 15-55727, 09/21/2015, ID: 9691076, DktEntry: 13, Page 4 of 75 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page a. Plaintiffs’ proffered method of proving materiality was not tailored to their theory that consumers factor a belief that the Wesson Oil natural label means the absence of GMOs into their purchasing decision .......................................................................... 32 b. The district court erred in finding it appropriate to apply a classwide presumption of materiality when at least one-third of a proposed class does not find the label claim material .................................................. 38 3. The district court did not consider ConAgra’s own superior rebuttal evidence which shows that the term ‘natural’ holds so many different meanings for different consumers that materiality cannot be shown ........................... 41 B. Individual issues predominate with respect to damages .................... 45 1. Comcast requires a damages model linked to Plaintiffs’ theory of liability ...................................................................... 46 2. The district court twice rejected one of the models that formed the basis of the hybrid model ...................................... 47 3. The district court erroneously accepted a “hybrid” model that was incapable of reliably or persuasively calculating classwide damages ................................................................... 48 V. A CLASS ACTION IS NOT A SUPERIOR VEHICLE FOR ADJUDICATING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS BECAUSE IT IS UNMANAGEABLE..................................................................................... 57 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 59 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................................. 59 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 62 -iii- Ascertainability ■ Spivey ■ 9 Case: 15-55727, 09/21/2015, ID: 9691076, DktEntry: 13, Page 5 of 75 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 444 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................. 16, 42 Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................ 44 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................ 27, 28, 32 Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No. C 10-4387-PJH, 2014 WL 60097 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014) ................... 13, 16 Astiana v. Kashi Co., 291 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................. 42, 44 Bakalar v. Vavra, 237 F.R.D. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .......................................................................... 20 Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 26 Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Performance and Emission Analysis of Cottonseed Oil Methyl Ester in a Diesel Engine

    Performance and Emission Analysis of Cottonseed Oil Methyl Ester in a Diesel Engine

    PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION ANALYSIS OF COTTONSEED OIL METHYL ESTER IN A DIESEL ENGINE R.K.Kalaiselvan1 1Assistant professor,Department Of Mechanical Engineering, CK college of engineering & technology Abstract-In this study, performance and emissions of cottonseed oil methyl ester in a diesel engine was experimentally investigated. For the study, cottonseed oil methyl ester (CSOME) was added to diesel fuel, numbered D2, by volume of 5%(B5), 20%(B20), 50%(B50) and 75%(B75) as well as pure CSOME (B100). Fuels were tested in a single cylinder, direct injection, air cooled diesel engine. The effects of CSOME-diesel blends on engine performance and exhaust emissions were examined at various engine speeds and full loaded engine. The effect of B5, B20, B50, B75, B100 and D2 on the engine power, engine torque, bsfc's and exhaust gasses temperature were clarified by the performance tests. The influences of blends on CO, NOx, SO2 and smoke opacity were investigated by emission tests. The experimental results showed that the use of the lower blends (B5) slightly increases the engine torque at medium and higher speeds in compression ignition engines. However, there were no significant differences in performance values of B5, B20 and diesel fuel. Also with the increase of the biodiesel in blends, the exhaust emissions were reduced. The experimental results showed that the lower contents of CSOME in the blends can partially be substituted for the diesel fuel without any modifications in diesel engines. I. ALTERNATIVE FUELS It is known as non-conventional or advanced fuels, are any materials or substances that can be used as fuels, other than conventional fuels.
  • Memo in Support of Motion for Final Approval

    Memo in Support of Motion for Final Approval

    Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 661 Filed 07/23/19 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:19044 1 MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP DAVID E. AZAR (SBN 218319) 2 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90025 3 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 4 [email protected] 5 TADLER LAW LLP ARIANA J. TADLER (pro hac vice) 6 HENRY J. KELSTON (pro hac vice) 7 One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, New York 10119 8 Telephone: (212) 946-9453 [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 11 ADAM J. LEVITT (pro hac vice) Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor 12 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 13 [email protected] 14 Class Counsel 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 WESTERN DIVISION 18 IN RE CONAGRA FOODS, INC. Case No. CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) 19 MDL No. 2291 20 CLASS ACTION 21 22 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 23 AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS 24 25 Dated: July 23, 2019 26 27 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx) FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS Case 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR Document 661 Filed 07/23/19 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:19045 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2 4 A. Procedural History ................................................................................................................. 2 5 B. Key Settlement Terms ........................................................................................................... 3 6 III. THE NOTICE PLAN AND RESPONSE THERETO ..................................................... 5 7 8 A.

  • © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works

    Conagra Brands, Inc. v. Brise%25no, 2017 WL 1353282 (2017) 2017 WL 1353282 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Petitioner, v. Robert BRISEÑO, et al., Respondents. No. 16-1221. pril 10, 2017. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Angela M. Spivey, McGuireWoods LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2100, Atlanta, GA 30309, (404) 443-5720. R. Trent Taylor, McGuireWoods LLP, Gateway Plaza, 800 E. Canal St., Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 775-1182. Shay Dvoretzky, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 879-3939, [email protected], for petitioner. *i QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Conagra makes Wesson brand cooking oil. Respondents sought to represent classes of all those who had purchased Wesson Oil in eleven states during the past ten years. But Respondents never proposed any way to efficiently and reliably identify the likely millions of people who fall within that class definition - and there isn't one. Conagra does not sell directly to consumers, so it has no records of any individual purchases. Similarly, Respondents never sought records from other businesses such as grocery stores, likely because they don't have them either. And even if consumers could accurately recall small purchases made years ago, it would take myriad mini-trials to prove as much. With full knowledge of these difficulties, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless affirmed class certification. The question presented is whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a district court to certify a damages class where there is no reliable, administratively feasible method for identifying the members of the class.
  • Cert. Petition

    Cert. Petition

    No. 16-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Petitioner, v. ROBERT BRISEÑO, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANGELA M. SPIVEY SHAY DVORETZKY MCGUIREWOODS LLP Counsel of Record 1230 Peachtree St., NE JEFFREY R. JOHNSON Suite 2100 JONES DAY Atlanta, GA 30309 51 Louisiana Ave., NW (404) 443-5720 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 879-3939 R. TRENT TAYLOR [email protected] MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 E. Canal St. Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 775-1182 Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Conagra makes Wesson brand cooking oil. Respondents sought to represent classes of all those who had purchased Wesson Oil in eleven states during the past ten years. But Respondents never proposed any way to efficiently and reliably identify the likely millions of people who fall within that class definition—and there isn’t one. Conagra does not sell directly to consumers, so it has no records of any individual purchases. Similarly, Respondents never sought records from other businesses such as grocery stores, likely because they don’t have them either. And even if consumers could accurately recall small purchases made years ago, it would take myriad mini-trials to prove as much. With full knowledge of these difficulties, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless affirmed class certification. The question presented is whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a district court to certify a damages class where there is no reliable, administratively feasible method for identifying the members of the class.