Linda Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Incorporated
764 F.3d 750
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Sturm/Treehouse (Sturm) sold Grove Square Coffee (GSC) pods compatible with Keurig machines that contained over 95% instant (soluble) coffee with a small amount of “microground” coffee; packaging emphasized premium, freshly brewed coffee imagery and language and largely avoided the word “instant.”
- Sturm intentionally designed packaging and shelf placement to resemble licensed Keurig K‑Cups, priced GSC near premium brands, and conducted marketing tests warning against calling the product “instant.”
- Multiple consumer surveys and store complaints showed widespread consumer confusion; Sturm received many negative complaints and internally discussed consumer reactions and distribution strategy.
- Plaintiffs brought consolidated consumer‑protection suits (putative class) from purchasers in eight states alleging deceptive packaging and omissions; district court denied class certification and granted summary judgment for defendants on eight named plaintiffs’ individual claims.
- Seventh Circuit reversed: held district court abused its discretion in denying class certification and erred in granting summary judgment for defendants on the individual plaintiffs, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) | GSC packaging was a single course of conduct; whether packaging likely to mislead a reasonable consumer is a common question for the class | Packaging conveyed truthful terms (e.g., “soluble and microground”); purchaser circumstances vary so no single common answer | Reversed: commonality satisfied because the objective question whether packaging was likely to mislead ties class claims together |
| Predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common issues (packaging, surveys, damages model) predominate; class litigation is superior because individual suits are impractical | Individualized reliance/causation issues defeat predominance; subjective inquiries require individual trials | Reversed: predominance not defeated by individualized reliance; damages can be measured classwide and class action is an appropriate vehicle |
| Summary judgment — Likely to mislead (merits) | Packaging and marketing implied premium fresh ground coffee; surveys and consumer complaints create factual dispute | Packaging is not literally false and says what it is; some purchasers read/understood labels | Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether packaging would likely mislead a reasonable consumer; jury question |
| Summary judgment — Individual reliance/causation | Named plaintiffs testified they were misled or acted based on packaging impressions; corroborating complaints and surveys exist | Plaintiffs’ testimony contained admissions that undermine reliance (e.g., knew term definitions, bought for price) | Reversed: district court failed to view facts in plaintiff's favor and cherry‑picked testimony; reasonable jurors could find reliance for each plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a question capable of classwide answers; single common question can suffice)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca‑Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) (packaging/labeling can give rise to deception claims even when truthful in some respects)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (classwide damages methodology must be consistent with the theory of liability)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (failure of proof on a material class issue can decide the case for the whole class)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSys., 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (minor overbreadth should be remedied by class definition amendments, not denial of certification)
- Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) (consumer‑product defect/deception cases can be suitable for class treatment despite varying damages)
- Falcon v. General Tel. Co. of Southwest, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (typicality and commonality principles in class certification)
- Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (class action often only realistic means to vindicate small‐value consumer claims)
- Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992) (deceptive advertising inquiry centers on tendency to mislead reasonable consumers)
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) (court may probe factual overlapping issues with merits at certification stage)