Triple S Farms v. DeLaval

Background

Defendant DeLaval, Inc. is described in the opinion as a Swedish company that created and marketed the VMS V300 ("V300"), a robotic milking system introduced in June 2018. Defendant West Agro, Inc. is a subsidiary of DeLaval that sells after-market parts for the V300. Plaintiffs — Triple S Farms, LLC; Green Acres Dairy, LLC; Charles Fry and Emily Snyder; Rocky Point Farms, Inc.; and Northcrest Dairy, Inc. — are dairy farms and farmers from various states who purchased or leased V300s.

Plaintiffs filed suit in 2022 alleging the V300 has inherent defects rendering it unable to perform its essential milking functions in compliance with industry standards, including those set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), and that DeLaval misrepresented the machine's capabilities through a uniform global marketing campaign. Plaintiffs claim DeLaval knew and concealed that the V300 was incapable of performing its essential functions. Claims include fraud by concealment and by misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, strict products liability, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (WDTPA).

In the United States, DeLaval sold a total of 672 V300s to 146 dairy farmers. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of 127 farmers who purchased or leased 633 V300s, organized into four subclasses: - Missouri subclass: 29 farmers who purchased 107 machines directly from DeLaval under agreements with a Missouri choice-of-law provision. - Minnesota subclass: 17 Minnesota farmers who purchased 48 machines from third-party dealers without a choice-of-law provision. - Wisconsin subclass: 31 Wisconsin farmers who purchased 107 machines from third-party dealers without a choice-of-law provision. - Multi-state subclass: 51 farmers from twelve states who purchased 331 machines from a DeLaval-owned dealership with an Illinois choice-of-law provision or from third-party dealers.

Named Plaintiff Farms

The opinion details the background of each named plaintiff farm, noting significant variation in how each learned about the V300, what representations they received, and how they operated the machines after purchase:

- Triple S Farms (Minnesota): Purchased four V300s in July 2018 for just over $866,000. The record reflects that Triple S did not always follow best practices, including failing to trim udder hairs, not changing filters as recommended, and possibly not consistently using pre-spray disinfectant. Triple S has maintained Grade A milk status throughout its use of the V300s.

- Green Acres Dairy (Washington State): The first farm in the United States to operate a V300. The Roetcisoenders leased five V300s installed in April 2019 for approximately $1.2 million. Green Acres had pre-existing elevated somatic cell count (SCC) issues linked to labor problems before acquiring the V300. A promotional video five months after installation showed Mr. Roetcisoender praising the V300's impact on mastitis rates. Green Acres changed milk filters only twice daily rather than the recommended three times. Green Acres has never failed an FDA or state inspection and has maintained Grade A status.

- Rocky Point Farms / Charles Fry and Emily Snyder (Maryland): Mr. Fry purchased two V300s in March 2020 for $411,657. Before purchase, Mr. Fry personally observed the V300 missing teats at a DeLaval-organized farm visit and was told by a DeLaval representative that the machine would catch missed teats "the next time." Rocky Point made multiple public statements praising the V300 from May 2021 through September 2022. The farm failed to maintain equipment as directed, used an undersized air compressor contrary to DeLaval's recommendation, and did not promptly replace empty chemical barrels. Rocky Point's Grade A status was never affected.

- Northcrest Dairy (Wisconsin): Co-owned by Jeffrey and Jenny Spoke. Northcrest Farms LLC purchased eight V300s in August 2018 for $1,434,400. A September 2020 article quoted the Spokes as "more than satisfied" with the V300. Dr. Reid, one of Defendants' experts, observed farm management issues including dirty cows, inadequate bedding, and water trough maintenance problems. The Spokes have never lost Grade A status or had milk rejected by customers.

Legal Standard for Class Certification

Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff seeking to certify a class must satisfy four threshold requirements — numerosity (enough class members), commonality (shared legal questions), typicality (named plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class), and adequate representation — and must also satisfy one of Rule 23(b)'s three subsections. Plaintiffs sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires showing that (1) questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over individual questions, and (2) a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. The court focused its analysis on predominance and superiority, as these were the primary disputed requirements.

Predominance requires that the defendant's liability can be established with common evidence across all class members. If members must present evidence that "varies from member to member" on a given element, that element presents an individual question that weighs against certification.

Predominance Analysis

Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation

Both fraud claims (by concealment/omission and by inducement/misrepresentation) and the negligent misrepresentation claim require proof of reliance — that each purchaser actually relied on DeLaval's alleged omissions or false representations. The court found this element cannot be proven with common evidence because:

- The named plaintiffs each received different information from different sources (DeLaval employees, independent dealers, brochures, videos, farm visits, and events). - The court cited evidence that some farmers' purchasing decisions were driven primarily by factors other than the representations at issue — for example, Mr. Fry cited cost and proximity of service as key reasons, and Mr. Roetcisoender cited labor issues and the compatibility of the V300's indexing system with his herd. - Mr. Fry personally observed the V300 miss teats before purchasing and did so anyway. - A class of 127 farmers would exhibit even greater variability in information received and reliance. - The court cited Eighth Circuit precedent holding that fraud cases involving variable representations to individual plaintiffs are often unsuitable for class treatment.

The court distinguished a case Plaintiffs relied on — Custom Hair Designs by Sandy v. Central Payment Co., LLC, 984 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 2020) — because there, all claims rested on a common contract term and nearly identical communications, unlike the varied interactions here.

Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment requires showing that a defendant accepted a benefit under inequitable or unjust circumstances. The court found this claim also turns on individualized questions of whether each purchaser relied on or was influenced by the alleged misrepresentations, consistent with the Eighth Circuit's general rule that unjust-enrichment claims are inappropriate for class treatment. The court denied certification of the multi-state subclass (which raised only the cross-cutting claims) on this basis.

Breach of Express and Implied Warranty

For the Missouri and Minnesota subclasses, warranty claims require proving (1) the existence of a warranty, (2) breach, and (3) a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm. The court found causation would require farm-by-farm assessment because numerous farm-specific factors — pre-existing herd health issues, types of cows, compliance with DeLaval's best practices, stall layouts, bedding, feed, and sanitation practices — each independently affect milk production, milk quality, and cow health. The record of the named plaintiff farms demonstrated wide variation in these factors, making common proof of causation impossible.

Strict Liability and Negligence

Strict liability and negligence claims for the Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota subclasses face at least three barriers, according to the court:

1. Choice-of-law issues: Plaintiffs did not address Minnesota law on strict liability at all, and resolving variations across state laws would require careful subclass-by-subclass management.

2. Causation: As with the warranty claims, causation is an element of both strict liability and negligence in all relevant states and would require extensive individualized factfinding.

3. Comparative fault (Missouri): Under Missouri law, a negligence case cannot be decided without a jury assessing each party's relative fault, which would require presentation of significant evidence specific to each class member.

Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (WDTPA)

The WDTPA requires showing that (1) the defendant made a representation to one or more members of the public intending to induce an obligation; (2) the representation was untrue, deceptive, or misleading; and (3) the representation materially induced a pecuniary loss to the plaintiff. The WDTPA also requires that the representation be made "in this state" (Wisconsin). The court found the claim requires individualized inquiries into whether each Wisconsin subclass member was exposed to a qualifying representation made in Wisconsin, since Plaintiffs only alleged DeLaval launched the V300 at a public event in Wisconsin but did not show every subclass member attended or received representations there.

Superiority Analysis

The court also found that a class action is not the superior method of adjudication:

- Because all claims require individual trials anyway due to individualized issues, no efficiency is gained from a class proceeding. - The individual claims are not "negative value" suits (i.e., cases where the cost of individual litigation would exceed the potential recovery), since a single V300 costs approximately $175,514 and retrofitting a barn can cost up to $1.3 million — making individual claims financially viable. - Plaintiffs' argument that farmers would be deterred from suing individually because they still depend on DeLaval was undermined by evidence that DeLaval had already settled claims with some farms that continue operating their V300s.

Issue Certification Under Rule 23(c)(4)

Plaintiffs alternatively sought to have specific issues certified for classwide trial under Rule 23(c)(4), which allows class treatment of "particular issues." The court declined, finding that the issues Plaintiffs proposed — such as whether the V300 is defective, whether DeLaval knew, whether its representations were false, and whether it breached its warranties — are essentially the whole case and suffer from the same individualized problems identified above.

Sanctions Matter

A separate discovery dispute arose from Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain information about arbitration clauses and class-action waivers contained in agreements signed by 74 of the 127 potential class members. Defendants had argued these agreements would presumptively exclude those 74 farms from any class. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins found that Defendants had disobeyed prior discovery orders and on July 31, 2026 recommended a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) that would preclude Defendants from relying on the arbitration and class-action waiver agreements to oppose class certification.

Defendants objected, characterizing the delays as honest mistakes that were corrected and arguing the sanction was unwarranted given that fees and expenses had already been ordered. Because the court denied class certification without considering or relying on those arbitration agreements at all, it found the recommended Rule 37 sanction unnecessary to resolve. The court declined to accept the recommended sanction and overruled Defendants' objection as moot. The court noted a separate fee petition remains pending.

Disposition

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 442) is denied. 2. The court declines to accept the magistrate judge's recommended sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) (Dkt. 605), and Defendants' objection to that recommendation (Dkt. 614) is overruled.