Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
674 F. App'x 654
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (led by Robert Briseno) sued ConAgra claiming Wesson-brand oils labeled “100% Natural” are misleading because the oils contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They seek statewide consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims.
- The district court certified eleven statewide damages classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
- ConAgra appealed certification, arguing plaintiffs’ claims are atypical, individual issues (materiality and damages) predominate, and class treatment is not superior/manageable.
- Plaintiffs proposed a two-step classwide damages model: hedonic regression to measure the label’s price premium and conjoint analysis to isolate the portion attributable to a no-GMO understanding.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s class-certification order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typicality | Plaintiffs relied on the "100% Natural" label and are typical of class members. | ConAgra: absent class members did not rely and plaintiffs themselves didn’t rely, so claims are atypical. | Court: district court credited plaintiffs’ declarations; reliance for absent class members is not required for the certified claims; typicality upheld. |
| Predominance — Materiality | "100% Natural" is understood by reasonable consumers to mean no GMOs and is material. | Evidence does not show a reasonable consumer would read the label as meaning GMO-free; individual issues predominate. | Court: record supported common proof of materiality; district court did not clearly err; predominance on materiality satisfied. |
| Predominance — Damages (Comcast) | Two-step econometric model (hedonic + conjoint) can measure classwide price premium tied to the theory of liability. | Model is unreliable; combining methods fails Comcast’s requirement for a classwide damages model. | Court: district court acted within discretion in finding the model tracks plaintiffs’ theory and survives Comcast at certification. |
| Superiority / Manageability | Class mechanism is necessary to adjudicate many small claims; common issues predominate across states. | Eleven statewide classes with varying state laws are unmanageable and inferior to other methods. | Court: district court reasonably found class adjudication superior; classes could be severed if needed; superiority satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 23(a) requirements for class certification)
- Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits challenges do not defeat class certification when common issues predominate)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (classwide damages methodology must be consistent with liability theory)
- Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming certification where plaintiffs’ damages model tied to liability theory)
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (superiority and manageability considerations in class actions)
Affirmed.