Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17855

Miller, a recovering alcoholic on Minnesota probation, sues Redwood in federal court under diversity jurisdiction asserting state-law CFA, FSAA, negligence, misrepresentation, and products liability/warranty claims; he later amends to retain CFA, FSAA, and negligence and to seek class certification.
Redwood offers an EtG/EtS urine test with a cutoff of 100 ng/mL EtG and 25 ng/mL EtS, claiming results above cutoff indicate alcohol, separate from incidental exposure.
Miller allegedly provided a June 15, 2010 urine sample; his probation officer alleged a violation based on the test results; Miller contends the positive result was due to incidental exposure, not drinking.
State court proceedings occurred on the probation matter, with expert testimony regarding incidental exposure; the state court ultimately released Miller four and a half months after his June 2010 arrest.
The district court dismissed Miller’s amended complaint as to CFA/FSAA (true statements/puffery) and refused to impose a broader duty in negligence; Miller appeals challenging standing and the sufficiency of his negligence claim.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit addresses Article III standing, statutory standing, the sufficiency of the negligence claim under Minnesota law, and class-certification issues, and affirms the district court’s dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller has Article III standing to sue in federal court	Miller asserts cognizable injury from alleged misrepresentations causing detention and lost income.	Redwood argues Miller lacks Article III standing due to causation gaps and third-party (State) involvement in the probation process.	Miller lacks Article III standing; dismissal affirmed.
Whether Miller has statutory standing to sue under Minnesota CFA/FSAA in federal court	Miller contends statutory rights were violated by Redwood's alleged misrepresentations.	Redwood contends lack of statutory standing under Minnesota law and lack of redressable injury in federal court.	Statutory standing not reached because Article III standing fails.
Whether Miller’s negligence claim states a cognizable duty under Minnesota law	Redwood owed a duty to provide reliable test results and to warn of false-positive rates.	No duty beyond proper handling of tests; duty to warn/notify is not imposed in this context.	Minnesota would not impose the asserted duty; negligence claim dismissed.
Whether class certification is appropriate given the underlying claims	Class treatment is warranted due to widespread impact of alleged misrepresentations.	Without viable claims, class certification is inappropriate.	Affirmed district court’s dismissal of class claims.

Arizonans for Official English v. Ariz., 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (standing questions precede jurisdiction; Article III standing required)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (core standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injury and causal connection)
Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2012) (distinguishes constitutional vs statutory standing; causation concerns)
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001) (statutory misrepresentation damages require some legal nexus)
Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2011) (duty as threshold question; foreseeability and special relationships)
Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2012) (predict Minnesota law when necessary; duty and foreseeability considerations)
Eubank v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 626 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. 2010) (preference for state-law interpretation under Erie when applicable)
Red River Freethinkers v. City of Fargo, 679 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2012) (Article III causation to be fairly traceable to defendant's conduct)