## Facts

- ConAgra manufactured and sold Wesson-brand cooking oils labeled “100% Natural.”
- Purchasers alleged the oils were made from genetically modified ingredients, making the “100% Natural” representation false or misleading.
- Plaintiffs brought consolidated consumer claims under various state consumer-protection statutes, warranty theories, and unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of eleven statewide damages classes of persons who purchased Wesson oils bearing the “100% Natural” label during applicable limitations periods.
- The cases were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in the Central District of California.
- The district court certified eleven Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes.
- ConAgra obtained interlocutory review under Rule 23(f), primarily arguing certification required proof of an “administratively feasible” method to identify class members.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 23 requires, as a prerequisite to class certification, a separate showing of “administrative feasibility” (a reliable method to identify absent class members).
2. Whether, absent such a prerequisite, the district court abused its discretion in certifying the Rule 23(b)(3) classes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification order.
- The court held Rule 23 does not impose a standalone administrative feasibility requirement.
- The court declined to adopt the heightened ascertainability doctrine associated with the Third Circuit.
- The court concluded identification and manageability concerns are addressed within Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority inquiry (including manageability) and related case-management tools, rather than as an extra prerequisite.

## Legal Principles

- Courts must apply the certification requirements listed in Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) as written; they may not add extra-textual prerequisites to class certification.
- Rule 23 does not require plaintiffs to prove an administratively feasible mechanism for identifying class members as a separate threshold showing.
- Practical difficulties in identifying class members may be considered under Rule 23(b)(3), including superiority and manageability, rather than through a rigid ascertainability screen.
- Due process concerns about fraudulent or inaccurate claims can be addressed through claims administration procedures and defendants’ opportunities to contest individual claims, without imposing a separate administrative-feasibility element.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld certification of statewide consumer damages classes and held that Rule 23 contains no independent administrative feasibility requirement; concerns about identifying class members are evaluated through the existing predominance, superiority, and manageability framework.


Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017)