United States: Ninth Circuit Rejects Meaningful Ascertainability Requirement For Class Certification, Cementing Deep Circuit Split

Last Updated: January 10 2017
Article by Archis A. Parasharami and Daniel E. Jones

Can you have a class action if class members can't reliably be found? That question is at the heart of the debate over ascertainability—one that has divided the federal courts. Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit weighed in, holding in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. (pdf) that plaintiffs need not demonstrate "an administratively feasible way to identify class members [as] a prerequisite to class certification."

That conclusion is disappointing.

In our view, due process and the Rules Enabling Act require taking ascertainability seriously. That means that, first, plaintiffs must demonstrate that there is an administratively feasible way to tell who is in the class, without plaintiff-by-plaintiff fact finding and an unmanageable series of mini-trials; and second, the use of barebones affidavits by would-be class members attesting that they fall within the class definition are inadequate, because due process entitles defendants to challenge an individual's claim of membership in the class.

The leading case adopting these principles is the Third Circuit's opinion in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013), which we have previously discussed extensively. Several other circuits have followed Carrera's lead and likewise required plaintiffs to demonstrate a feasible way to tell who is in the class—including the Second Circuit in Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 806 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2015), the Fourth Circuit in EQT Production Co v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014) (our colleague reported on EQT here), and the Eleventh Circuit (albeit in an unpublished decision) in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 621 F. App'x 945 (11th Cir. 2015).

Other courts of appeals, however, have refused to follow Carrera and rejected the "requirement that plaintiffs prove at the certification stage that there is a 'reliable and administratively feasible' way to identify" class members. Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Mullins with approval and "see[ing] no reason to follow Carrera"); Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2016) (declining to clearly "outline[] a requirement of ascertainability" but citing Mullins with apparent approval).

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Briseno places that court firmly in the latter camp, deepening the circuit split on this critical issue. (We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in a separate Ninth Circuit case raising the same issue.) The panel questioned whether Rule 23 contains an independent "ascertainability" requirement at all, but held that, in any event, such a requirement does not compel plaintiffs to propose a feasible method for identifying "who is in the class."

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit did not deny that it would be difficult—if not impossible—to identify potential class members in an objective way: the proposed class encompasses residents of eleven states who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products at certain times. Identification of these individuals cannot realistically take place through documentation, as consumers typically do not keep receipts or packaging from food products that likely were purchased and consumed years ago; and the makers of Wesson oil do not sell directly to consumers, so have no records of the purchasers of their products. The Ninth Circuit panel recognized as much, noting that it "would be difficult to demonstrate" an administratively feasible way of identifying class members and that strictly adhering to the ascertainability requirement would be "outcome determinative"—in other words, it would require reversal of the district court's certification order. But the court then used that observation as a reason not to impose a strict ascertainability requirement, lamenting that "[c]lass actions involving inexpensive consumer goods in particular would likely fail at the outset if administrative feasibility were a freestanding prerequisite to certification."

That approach to class certification treats consumer class actions as the norm, thus (at least in our view) turning on its head the Supreme Court's repeated admonition that class actions are "an exception to the usual rule" that claims must be litigated individually. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979).

Moreover, there are several fundamental flaws in the Ninth Circuit's analysis.

To begin with, the Ninth Circuit concluded that because ascertainability is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 23, any concerns about identifying class members in an administratively feasible way should be addressed entirely under the rubric of Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement—in particular, its mandate that courts consider "the likely difficulties in managing a class action." The court made clear that this shift from ascertainability to manageability will blunt the force of arguments that class members cannot be feasibly identified, because the court went on to say that "courts should not refuse to certify a class merely on the basis of manageability concerns." That is a bold proposition: outside of the settlement context, the fundamental question that Rule 23 asks is whether a class-wide trial is appropriate, and it seems self-evident that if a class trial is not manageable, then a class should not be certified.

The panel's opinion instead appears to replace the relatively concrete questions of manageability and ascertainability with a vague standard authorizing courts to "balance" the difficulty (or impossibility) of identifying class members with their views of "the benefits of class adjudication."

This nebulous balancing approach gives short shrift to the due process underpinnings of the ascertainability requirement. Because the Rules Enabling Act prohibits the use of the Federal Rules to "enlarge, abridge, or modify any substantive right," a Rule 23 class action is not—and cannot be—anything more than the sum of the individual class members' claims. And because in an individual case a plaintiff would have to prove that he purchased the challenged product and the defendant would have the right to challenge the plaintiff's evidentiary showing, cross-examine the plaintiff, and have a court or jury resolve any factual disputes, the defendant must maintain the same due process rights in a Rule 23 class action. Yet if class members cannot be identified, defendants will have no way to bring such challenges.

The Ninth Circuit brushed aside these due process concerns by concluding that defendants can bring individualized challenges to would-be class members' right to recovery as part of a claims administration process, after a class has been certified and liability determined.

But this certify-first, ascertain-later approach is deeply flawed. While parties may agree in settlement class actions to have a claims administrator assess claims forms (that are sometimes the equivalent of affidavits) as to whether an individual qualifies for relief, that agreement reflects one of the compromises of settling a case. In a litigated case, however, the administrative determinations of an outside third party in a high-stakes class action do not satisfy a defendant's due process right to cross-examine its opponents and for judicial resolution of factual disputes.

The Ninth Circuit panel also problematically endorsed the plaintiffs' proposal to avoid identifying actual people who are class members by calculating the defendant's total liability on an aggregate basis based on total sales (without knowing to whom the product was sold)—an approach sometimes referred to as "fluid recovery." Yet numerous courts have rejected the use of such an approach in a litigated class action (as opposed to a settlement), including the Ninth Circuit over four decades ago in In re Hotel Tel. Charges, 500 F.2d 58 (9th Cir. 1974). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit case cited by the panel, Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990), held only that cy pres recovery might be used for the distribution of unclaimed damages when plaintiffs bring claims for statutory damages that "are not dependent on proof of actual injury," and thus there is less concern about "the impermissible circumvention of individual proof requirements." The Unfair Competition Law claims at issue in Briseno, however, do require proof of actual injury. (As we have previously discussed in connection with Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, there are serious questions about whether Article III permits federal courts to certify classes that include persons who have not suffered concrete harm.)

Finally, given that the Ninth Circuit oversees the so-called "Food Court," its rejection of a meaningful ascertainability requirement as a prerequisite to class certification will likely encourage the filing of food-labeling class actions that have been the subject of substantial criticism. Yet the evidence suggests that the principal beneficiaries of such class actions are the lawyers (on both sides, to be sure) rather than the class members, most of whom cannot be identified and thus do not actually receive any benefit.

* * *

In short, the courts of appeals are now deeply divided on whether there must be an administratively feasible way to identify actual class members before a class may be certified. In an appropriate case, the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review.

Originally published on January 6, 2017

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions