In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
302 F.R.D. 537
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (consumers from 12 states) sued ConAgra alleging Wesson Oils labeled “100% Natural” are misleading because the oils are derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs); they seek certification of twelve statewide classes for consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims.
- The consolidated action progressed through multiple amended complaints; plaintiffs moved for class certification after expert discovery and ConAgra moved to strike plaintiffs’ experts.
- The court applied Daubert gatekeeping (post-Dukes/Ellis) to expert declarations offered for the certification motion.
- The court struck plaintiffs’ damages expert (Colin Weir) as failing Rule 702 (no concrete model, no specified variables or data applied) but allowed portions of plaintiffs’ technical expert (Dr. Charles Benbrook) testimony about genetic engineering; it struck Benbrook’s opinions about the general meaning of “natural,” his consumer-survey opinions, and any legal conclusions that labels were “false and deceptive.”
- ConAgra’s marketing expert (Dr. Hanssens) conducted a survey finding no statistically significant effect from the “100% Natural” label; the court admitted that survey (weight issues go to credibility).
- On class certification, the court found Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) generally met and the class ascertainable, but denied certification under Rule 23(b)(2) (no named plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief because none showed a likelihood of future purchases). The court denied Rule 23(b)(3) certification because plaintiffs failed to show predominance and that damages are calculable classwide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ damages expert (Weir) | Weir proposed hedonic regression and conjoint analysis as reasonable methods to compute classwide price premium; detailed specs can be developed in discovery | Weir lacks qualifications and provided no concrete model, variables, comparator set, or data — merely promises to build a model | Court struck Weir under Rule 702: his declaration was too incomplete and unreliable to assist certification analysis |
| Admissibility/scope of plaintiffs’ technical expert (Benbrook) | Benbrook can explain genetic-engineering processes and opine that foods derived from GE crops are not "natural"; he can rely on surveys and literature | ConAgra: Benbrook lacks survey/marketing expertise; some opinions are untestable rhetoric; he offers legal conclusions | Court admitted Benbrook’s technical opinions about GE processes and that GE-derived foods are not natural; struck his definitional survey-based opinions re: consumer meaning of "natural" and any legal conclusion that labeling was "false/deceptive" |
| Survey evidence (Hanssens) | Plaintiffs attack Hanssens’ survey design and reliability | ConAgra: Hanssens’ survey shows no material effect of the label; methodological criticisms go to weight, not admissibility | Court admitted Hanssens’ survey testimony under Rule 702; methodological critiques go to weight and cross-examination |
| Class certification (predominance / damages / injunctive relief) | Common issue exists (uniform "100% Natural" labeling); materiality and reliance can be proven classwide; damages can be measured classwide | Individualized issues predominate: reliance, causation, and damages measurement differ; Weir failed to show a classwide damages model; named plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief | Court denied certification: (1) Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class denied — no named plaintiff showed likely future purchases (no standing); (2) Rule 23(b)(3) damages class denied — plaintiffs failed to show predominance and Comcast requires a damages model tied to plaintiffs’ liability theory (Weir struck / no workable model) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court is gatekeeper on expert reliability under Rule 702)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification requires common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (Daubert applies at class-certification stage; expert reliability is assessed in that context)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (district court has broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (Rule 23(b)(3) requires that plaintiff’s damages model be capable of measuring damages attributable to the specific theory of liability)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 23 commonality/typicality standards and analysis of class certification)