Berni v. Barilla S.P.A. v. Schulman
964 F.3d 141
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs (four named purchasers) sued Barilla alleging its new specialty pastas were deceptively underfilled (slack-fill) while sold in same-sized boxes, asserting claims including N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 and unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiffs and Barilla reached a settlement: Barilla would add a "fill-line" and weight-disclaimer to future boxes (injunctive relief), and pay up to $450,000 in fees; the class release covered all past purchasers from July 28, 2010 to preliminary-approval date.
- The District Court (magistrate judge) certified the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and approved the settlement.
- Objector Adam E. Schulman (a class member) appealed, arguing past purchasers cannot obtain classwide injunctive relief because they lack a likely future injury.
- The Second Circuit held Schulman had standing as a class member to object, but concluded the District Court abused its discretion: past purchasers are not appropriate for Rule 23(b)(2) certification where injunctive relief will not provide relief to every class member.
- Result: the Court vacated the settlement approval and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a class of past purchasers can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief | Rule 23(b)(2) class is proper because the defendant acted on grounds applicable to the class and injunctive measures benefit class broadly | Settlement’s injunctive relief (fill-line, disclaimer) remedies the alleged deception for the class as a whole | No: Rule 23(b)(2) requires injunctive relief that would provide relief to each member; past purchasers typically lack a likely future injury, so class not certifiable under (b)(2) |
| Whether injunctive relief is a proper remedy for past purchasers | Injunction will prevent future deception and benefits consumers generally | Past purchasers will not necessarily buy again or be deceived again; injunction won’t redress their past harms | No: injunctive relief is prospective and requires a likely future injury; past harms alone do not justify it |
| Whether an individual objector (Schulman) has standing to appeal | Objector is a class member and may object to settlement under Rule 23(e)(5) | Settlement parties argued he lacked standing because he was not deceived and would not benefit from injunction | Yes: as an asserted class member he has a sufficient interest to object and to appeal |
| Standard for settlement-only certification | District court applied class-certification standards and approved settlement | District court applied heightened attention for settlement-only certification but erred on Rule 23(b)(2) analysis | Court reiterates heightened scrutiny for settlement-only certification but finds abuse of discretion in certifying a (b)(2) class here |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction would provide relief to each class member)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (injury must be actual and imminent for standing)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past exposure to illegal conduct does not alone support injunctive relief absent continuing harm)
- Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340 (2d Cir. 1998) (plaintiff seeking injunction must show likelihood of future injury)
- Petereit v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 63 F.3d 1169 (2d Cir. 1995) (injunctive relief inappropriate if adequate legal remedy exists)
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (heightened scrutiny required when certifying a settlement-only class)
- Devlin v. Scardeletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (class members have a sufficient interest to object to settlements)