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) ...........................................................................