Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021 · Civil Procedure

998 F.3d 1014 (2021)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureClass Action SettlementsRule 23(e)Rule 23(e)(2)class settlement approvalpost-certification settlementBluetooth factorsclear sailing

Facts

Consumers sued ConAgra alleging that Wesson Oil's "100% Natural" label was misleading because the product contained ingredients made from GMOs. After the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class, the parties settled on a claims-made basis: ConAgra would pay small per-unit amounts to claiming class members, plaintiffs would seek $6.85 million in fees and expenses that ConAgra agreed not to oppose, and any reduction in fees would revert to ConAgra rather than the class. The settlement also included an injunction barring ConAgra from marketing Wesson Oil as "natural" if it reacquired the brand, even though ConAgra had already removed the label and no longer owned Wesson Oil. In practice, less than $1 million went to the class while nearly $7 million went to attorneys and expenses.

Issue

When reviewing a post-class-certification class settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), must a district court scrutinize the attorney-fee arrangement for signs of collusion using the Bluetooth factors? Also, may the court approve the settlement by assigning only unspecified "some" value to injunctive relief that may be effectively worthless?

Rule

Under revised Rule 23(e)(2), district courts must determine whether a class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate by considering, among other things, the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees in relation to the relief provided to the class. Courts must apply Bluetooth's heightened scrutiny to post-class-certification settlements as well, examining whether counsel receives a disproportionate distribution, whether the parties included a clear-sailing arrangement, and whether the agreement contains a kicker or reverter clause. A court must quantify and explain the value of injunctive relief or exclude it from the settlement-value calculation, and it may not credit injunctive relief that is effectively illusory.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal court in San Diego certified a Rule 23(b)(3) consumer-fraud class against Sierra Basin Nutrition, LLC. After certification, the parties settled: class members would recover through a claims-made process, and class counsel would seek $3.8 million in fees under a provision stating the company would not oppose that request.

At the final approval hearing, the judge says heightened scrutiny of fee-related collusion applies only to pre-certification settlements because certification cured the agency problems. Which is the best assessment?

Explanation. Rule 23(e)(2), as interpreted by the majority opinion, requires courts to consider the terms of any proposed attorney-fee award in relation to the relief provided to the class. That obligation applies to post-class-certification settlements as well, because certification does not eliminate the incentive for defendants and class counsel to agree on a total payout that favors counsel over the class.