Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Background

The case concerns allegations that the calorie information on Conagra Brands, Inc.’s Parkay Spray label was misleading. Erin Allen filed the original complaint in 2013, proposing a nationwide class of people who bought Parkay Spray believing it was a fat- and calorie-free alternative to butter. The court later allowed seven additional named plaintiffs from states other than California to join the case.

In December 2018, the court denied in part Conagra’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the non-California plaintiffs’ claims. The court relied on pendent personal jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related claims that otherwise might not independently be heard in the forum. In June 2019, the court denied certification of a nationwide class but certified two multistate subclasses and four individual state classes.

Conagra then sought reconsideration of the prior personal-jurisdiction ruling. The plaintiffs opposed reconsideration and argued that, if the court found no personal jurisdiction, it should transfer the non-California plaintiffs’ claims to Illinois rather than dismiss them.

Personal jurisdiction

The court concluded that later developments had undermined the basis for exercising pendent personal jurisdiction. It stated that general jurisdiction over Conagra was in Illinois, not California, and that each named plaintiff therefore had to satisfy the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction.

The court explained that its earlier decision had relied in part on the case being a putative nationwide class action, the limited burden on Conagra of defending claims by additional plaintiffs under additional state laws, and the goal of avoiding piecemeal litigation and inconsistent results. Because the plaintiffs had not obtained certification of a nationwide class, the court found that the foundation for pendent personal jurisdiction was no longer present. Efficiency and avoiding piecemeal litigation were not enough to justify allowing the non-California plaintiffs to proceed in the court.

Requested transfer

The plaintiffs asked the court to transfer the non-California plaintiffs’ claims to Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. That statute provides for transfer of an action when the court determines there is a lack of jurisdiction and transfer would serve the interests of justice.

The court concluded that transfer was not appropriate. It relied in part on published Ninth Circuit authority suggesting that Section 1631 is limited to subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than personal jurisdiction. The court also noted uncertainty about whether the statute permits transferring only part of an action, rather than the entire action. Finally, the plaintiffs had not shown that transfer was in the interest of justice, and the court noted there was no suggestion that the statute of limitations would prevent them from refiling in a court with personal jurisdiction over Conagra for their claims.

Disposition

The court granted Conagra’s motion for reconsideration. It dismissed the claims of non-resident plaintiffs Ofelia Frechette, Shelley Harder, Deana Marr, Tammie Shawley, Brian Smith, and Betty Vazquez.

The court also decertified the following classes: Subclass #2, formerly Subclass #6, covering Indiana and Wyoming and represented by Frechette and Harder; and individual subclasses covering Michigan, represented by Smith, and Wisconsin and Illinois, represented by Vazquez. The order does not state that the dismissed claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

Judge William H. Orrick signed the order on October 15, 2019.