California Northern District Judges Split on Sufficiency of Damages Evidence at Class Certification – Will Ninth Circuit Weigh In?

by Perkins Coie
Contact

Judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California are split on the sufficiency of damages evidence at the class certification stage. Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc,  No. C 12-01633 CRB, 2014 WL 2702726 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2014) is the most recent decision.  In Jones, Judge Charles R. Breyer rejected each of the plaintiffs’ three damages models (“full refund,” “price premium,” and “regression”) as incapable of showing class-wide damages under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013).  Judge Breyer ultimately denied class certification in Jones.  By contrast, in two other cases, Judge Lucy H. Koh accepted the plaintiffs’ regression damages models and certified California classes.  Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC, No.12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 2466559 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2014); Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12-CV-2724-LHK, 2014 WL 2191901 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014).  The plaintiffs in the Jones case have filed a notice of appeal.  Dole Packaged Foods is seeking a permissive appeal in its case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(f).  Thus, the Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.  But it likely will be several months before the Ninth Circuit issues any decision.

Jones v. ConAgra Foods Class Cert Order

This blog covered the Jones decision in its entirety previously.  This article reviews only the factual background and the rulings on damages issues in Jones.

Factual Background in Jones

At issue in Jones are three distinct product lines:  Hunt’s tomato products, PAM cooking spray products, and Swiss Miss hot cocoa products.  The plaintiffs challenged each product line in different ways.

  • As to the Hunt’s tomato products, the plaintiffs alleged that they were deceptively labeled as “100% Natural” or “Free of artificial ingredients & preservatives” when they contained citric acid and/or calcium chloride.
  • As to the PAM products, the plaintiffs alleged that they were deceptively labeled as “100% NATURAL” but contained undisclosed petrochemicals such as petroleum gas (liquefied), propane, propane 2-methyl (isobutane) and butane.
  • As to the Swiss Miss products, the plaintiffs alleged that they were deceptively labeled as “Natural Source of Antioxidants” or “Natural Antioxidants Are Found in Cocoa,” but the products failed to meet the minimum nutritional requirements required for that antioxidant claim.

Judge Breyer’s 46-page opinion reviewed standing, ascertainability, and each requirement under Rule 23.  While finding for the plaintiffs on a few disputed issues (plaintiff Jones had standing, was typical, and was adequate in the Hunt’s case; counsel in the PAM case was adequate to represent the class), the Jones Court ruled for ConAgra on the ascertainability and predominance issues.  Judge Breyer also rejected an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

The Jones Court Ruled on All Damages Issues for ConAgra

Judge Breyer ruled on all damages issues for ConAgra, which paved the way for his denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The Court recited Comcast’s rule that, to satisfy the predominance inquiry, the class action plaintiff must present a model that (1) identifies damages that stem from the defendant’s alleged wrongdoing and (2) is susceptible of measurement across the entire class.  “At class certification, the plaintiff must present a likely method for determining class damages, though it is not necessary to show that his method will work with certainty at this time.”

Judge Breyer first rejected the “full refund” model offered by the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Oral Capps.  The Court reasoned that full restitution “fails to take into account the value class members received by purchasing the products.”

Judge Breyer next considered the “price premium” model, also known as the “benefit of the bargain” approach.  With this model, Dr. Capps took a comparable product – a Safeway Kitchens canned tomato sauce – and compared the price between it and the allegedly mislabeled products.  But Judge Breyer called this approach “deeply flawed.”  The Court stated, “It is inadequate to identify a single comparator, given the seven product lines and multiple varieties within each Hunt’s product line.”  Moreover, the comparator product itself was labeled “100% natural.”  The Court also noted that Safeway Kitchens is a generic brand, while Hunt’s is a “market leader.”

Finally – and this is where Judge Breyer diverged with Judge Koh – Judge Breyer rejected Dr. Capps’ regression, or econometric, approach as “vague and abstract.”  The aim of the regression approach is to find the difference in sales of the products before and after the challenged claims first appeared on the labels.  But, Judge Breyer ruled, Dr. Capps did not provide a clearly defined list of variables, did not determine whether the data related to any or all of his proposed control variables exists, and did not determine which competing and complementary products he would use.  Accordingly, the Court denied certification in each of the three proposed classes.

Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC
Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers

In contrast to Judge Breyer in the Jones case, Judge Koh accepted the regression model proposed by Dr. Capps in the Dole and Blue Diamond cases.  This blog previously covered the Dole and Blue Diamond cases.

Factual Background in Dole and Blue Diamond

At issue in Dole were 10 fruit products, which the plaintiff alleged were deceptively labeled as “All Natural Fruit” when they contained ascorbic acid (commonly known as Vitamin C) and citric acid.  At issue in Blue Diamond were 18 almond milk products, which the plaintiff alleged were deceptively labeled “All Natural” despite containing potassium citrate, and that the ingredient name “evaporated cane juice” violated federal and California law.

The Dole and Blue Diamond Courts Accept Only the Regression Damages Model

Before addressing damages, both the Dole and Blue Diamond Courts found for the plaintiffs on ascertainability and each of the Rule 23 issues.  And the Court in both cases rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed full refund model as “not the proper measure of damages.”  Similar to the Jones Court’s reasoning, Judge Koh ruled that consumers receive benefits “in the form of calories, nutrition, vitamins, and minerals,” from the product, and a proper damages model must account for those benefits.

Judge Koh also rejected Dr. Capps’ price premium model in both cases.  Among other bases, she reasoned that the price premium model failed to account for any differences between the products at issue and comparable products, such as brand loyalty or quality differences between brand and generic products.

Turning to the plaintiffs’ proposed regression models, the Court in both cases found that Dr. Capps’ proposed regression models sufficiently tied damages to the respective defendants’ alleged liability under Comcast.  Judge Koh found that the proposed regression analysis would isolate the effect of the alleged misrepresentation by controlling for all other factors that may affect the price of the product and the volume of sales.  Further, the proposed regression model would ensure that brand loyalty and product quality variables remained constant, but controlled for variables such as advertising expenditures, price differences among competing and complementary products, the disposable income of consumers, and population.   In both cases, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that Dr. Capps must have run his regressions by the class certification stage, particularly given the defendants’ failure to have completed the relevant document production in time.

Accordingly, Judge Koh certified a California damages class in both Dole and Blue Diamond.

What’s Next?

The Ninth Circuit will not issue any decision on the Jones appeal until 2015, as the briefing is not scheduled to be complete until December 2014.  And even then, the Ninth Circuit could find another issue dispositive and not reach the damages issue.  In Dole, the appeal is discretionary and the Ninth Circuit might not even hear the appeal.

If the Ninth Circuit in either case reaches the damages issues, then it probably will affirm the respective Courts’ rejection of the “full refund” model as a windfall to the plaintiffs and the “price premium” model due to the lack of appropriate comparator products in those particular cases.

As to a regression model, the Ninth Circuit might strike a middle ground between Jones on the one hand and Dole on the other.  To the extent that the Jones case suggests that a plaintiff must show at the class certification stage that her damages model will work with certainty, the Ninth Circuit may disavow that suggestion as inconsistent with ComcastSee Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1433 (stating that plaintiff’s damages model calculations “need not be exact”).   In that regard, the Ninth Circuit will have room to affirm the Dole Court’s acceptance of the untested proffered regression model, because Judge Koh emphasized that the defendant had “not provided the necessary discovery for Dr. Capps to finish his analysis.”

In the meantime, courts may continue to reject “full refund” and “price premium” damages models, but continue to split on the sufficiency of a regression analysis to demonstrate that damages are capable of classwide measurement.  The more complete the defendant’s document production is at the class certification stage, the more receptive a court might be to a defendant’s objections to a plaintiff’s hypothetical damages models.  And until any binding authority comes down from the Ninth Circuit, parties involved in food litigation and their counsel will continue to monitor decisions on damages for nuances that could tip the balance in a particular case.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie
Contact
more
less

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.