Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC
Decision Date | 28 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 15–1776.,15–1776. |
Citation | 795 F.3d 654 |
Parties | Vince MULLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellee. v. DIRECT DIGITAL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Elaine A. Ryan, Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint PC, Phoenix, AZ, Joseph Siprut, Siprut PC, Stewart M. Weltman, Boodell & Domanskis, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Kelly Elmore, Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, Darrell John Graham, Roeser Bucheit & Graham, LLC, Chicago, IL, Ari Nicholas Rothman, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before BAUER, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
We agreed to hear this appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which permits interlocutory review of orders granting or denying class action certification, to address whether Rule 23(b)(3) imposes a heightened “ascertainability” requirement as the Third Circuit and some district courts have held recently. See, e.g., Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir.2013). In this case, the plaintiff alleges consumer fraud by the seller of a dietary supplement, and the district court certified a plaintiff class. The court found that the proposed class satisfies the explicit requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), and the court rejected defendant's argument that Rule 23(b)(3) implies a heightened ascertainability requirement.
We affirm. We and other courts have long recognized an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that a class must be defined clearly and that membership be defined by objective criteria rather than by, for example, a class member's state of mind. In addressing this requirement, courts have sometimes used the term “ascertainability.” They have applied this requirement to all class actions, regardless of whether certification was sought under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). Class definitions have failed this requirement when they were too vague or subjective, or when class membership was defined in terms of success on the merits (so-called “fail-safe” classes). This version of ascertainability is well-settled in our circuit, and this class satisfies it.
More recently, however, some courts have raised the bar for class actions under Rule 23(b)(3). Using the term “ascertainability,” at times without recognizing the extension, these courts have imposed a new requirement that plaintiffs prove at the certification stage that there is a “reliable and administratively feasible” way to identify all who fall within the class definition. These courts have moved beyond examining the adequacy of the class definition itself to examine the potential difficulty of identifying particular members of the class and evaluating the validity of claims they might eventually submit. See Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154, 168 (3d Cir.2015) ( ).
This heightened requirement has defeated certification, especially in consumer class actions. See, e.g., Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., –––Fed.Appx. ––––, –––– – ––––, 2015 WL 3560722, at *2–4 (11th Cir. June 9, 2015) ( ); Carrera, 727 F.3d at 307–12 ( ); Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 787 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1089–90 (N.D.Cal.2011) (Marlboro smokers); Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 07 Civ. 8742(DLC), 2010 WL 3119452, at *12–13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010) (purchasers of Snapple beverages). All of these classes would seem to have satisfied the established meaning of “ascertainability.” See generally Myriam Gilles, Class Dismissed: Contemporary Judicial Hostility to Small–Claims Consumer Class Actions, 59 DePaul L.Rev. 305 (2010) (describing recent cases).
We decline to follow this path and will stick with our settled law. Nothing in Rule 23 mentions or implies this heightened requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), which has the effect of skewing the balance that district courts must strike when deciding whether to certify classes. The policy concerns motivating the heightened ascertainability requirement are better addressed by applying carefully the explicit requirements of Rule 23(a) and especially (b)(3). These existing requirements already address the balance of interests that Rule 23 is designed to protect. A court must consider “the likely difficulties in managing a class action,” but in doing so it must balance countervailing interests to decide whether a class action “is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
The heightened ascertainability requirement upsets this balance. In effect, it gives one factor in the balance absolute priority, with the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is often most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase. These are cases where the class device is often essential “to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997), quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir.1997) ; see also Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750, 760 (7th Cir.2014) (, )quoting Carnegie v. Household Int'l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir.2004) ( ).
Plaintiff Vince Mullins sued defendant Direct Digital, LLC for fraudulently representing that its product, Instaflex Joint Support, relieves joint discomfort. He alleges that statements on the Instaflex labels and marketing materials—“relieve discomfort,” “improve flexibility,” “increase mobility,” “support cartilage repair,” “scientifically formulated,” and “clinically tested for maximum effectiveness”—are fraudulent because the primary ingredient in the supplement (glucosamine sulfate) is nothing more than a sugar pill and there is no scientific support for these claims. Mullins asserts that Direct Digital is liable for consumer fraud under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and similar consumer protection laws in nine other states.
Mullins moved to certify a class of consumers “who purchased Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is disseminated.” The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3).
Direct Digital filed a petition for leave to appeal under Rule 23(f) arguing that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class without first finding that the class was “ascertainable.” Direct Digital also argued that the district court erred by concluding that the efficacy of a health product can qualify as a “common” question under Rule 23(a)(2). We granted the Rule 23(f) petition primarily to address the developing law of ascertainability, including among district courts within this circuit. See Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir.1999) ( ).1
We review the grant or denial of a motion for class certification for an abuse of discretion, e.g., Harper v. Sheriff of Cook County, 581 F.3d 511, 514 (7th Cir.2009), but a decision based on an erroneous view of the law, such as imposing a new requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), is likely to be an abuse of discretion. E.g., Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., 632 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir.2011) ().
We begin with the current state of the law in this circuit. Rule 23 requires that a class be defined, and experience has led courts to require that classes be defined clearly and based on objective criteria. See William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:3 (5th ed.2015) ; Joseph M. McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions § 4:2 (11th ed.2014) ; see, e.g., Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., 699 F.3d 129, 139 (1st Cir.2012) ; Bakalar v. Vavra, 237 F.R.D. 59, 64 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ; DeBremaecker v. Short, 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir.1970) (per curiam). When courts wrote of this implicit requirement of “ascertainability,” they trained their attention on the adequacy of the class definition itself. They were not focused on whether, given an adequate class definition, it would be difficult to identify particular members of the class.
This “weak” version of ascertainability has long been the law in this circuit. See Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 668 F.3d 481, 495 (7th Cir.2012) (); Oshana v. Coca–Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir.2006) ( ); accord, Adashunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600, 604 (7th Cir.1980) ().
The language of this well-settled requirement is susceptible to misinterpretation, though, which may explain some of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Koss v. Norwood
...long been interpreted as implicitly requiring a class to be defined "clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC , 795 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 2015) (collecting authority); accord Elliott v. ITT Corp. , 150 F.R.D. 569, 574 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (citing Gomez v. Ill. ......
-
Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
...further contend the classes are ascertainable because the class definition is clear and objective. Id. (citing Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 2015); Ries v. Ariz. Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2012)). Plaintiffs contend their claims meet the ......
-
T.S. v. Twentieth Century Fox Television
...a proposed class must be ascertainable, meaning it must be "defined clearly and based on objective criteria." Mullins v. Direct Digit., LLC , 795 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 2015). If a proposed class sweeps in a large proportion of persons who could not have been injured by a defendant's condu......
-
In re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig.
...feasibility" standard for determining ascertainability. These Circuits apply a less stringent test. See Mullins v. Direct Dig., LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 657, 662-72 (7th Cir. 2015) (recognizing "an implicit requirement under Rule 23" to establish ascertainability but rejecting the "heightened asc......
-
Is Your Putative Consumer Class Ascertainable? The 7th Circuit Suggests It Doesn't Really Matter At The Certification Stage
...action plaintiffs have a new reason to file suit in the Seventh Circuit. In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015), the Seventh Circuit refused to follow the Third Circuit's imposition of a heightened "ascertainability" requirement at the class certification stage. The......
-
'Ascertainability': A New Hurdle For Putative Class Action Plaintiffs?
...fact-finding or 'minitrials.'" Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 538, 592-93 (3d Cir.2012); Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. Ascertainability is most frequently challenged in cases involving claims of false advertising or unfair and deceptive practices......
-
With Circuits Mis-Aligned, Sixth Circuit Stays Class Certification Pending Appeal
...by granting certiorari in either this case or the Seventh Circuit's Mullins v. Direct Digital decision, which implicates similar issues. 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. P&G additionally argued that the case involves similar issues to two other cases for which certiorari already has been granted:......
-
Antitrust Class Certification Standards
...Dist. LEXIS 124799 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (applying Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir. 2013)). 16. See Mullins v. Direct Digital, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Circ. 2015); Astrazeneca AB v. UFCW ( In re Nexium Antitrust Litig.), 777 F.3d 9, 21 (1st Cir. 2015); Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 7......
-
Filing a Class Action
...within some geographic boundary? If the conduct affected sales nationwide and plaintiffs plan to 114. Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2015) (declining to apply any “heightened ascertainability requirement”). 115. See Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 304 (3d ......
-
Unintended Consequences of Repealing the Direct Purchaser Rule
...59 Davis, Classwide Recoveries , supra note 52, at 899–900. 60 Ruiz Torres , 835 F.3d at 1140–41; see also Mullins v. Direct Digit., LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 670 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The addition or subtraction of individual class members affects neither the defendant’s liability nor the total amoun......
-
Class Actions in the Year 2026: a Prognosis
...(overturning class certification on ascertainability grounds after analyzing the ascertainability requirements described in Marcus).225. 795 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2015).226. Id. at 661-63. 227. Id. at 663.228. Id. at 664-65 (offering a myriad of grounds for rejecting an ascertainability r......