Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01179/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01179-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

KATHY RUSSELL; TIFFANY 

ASHLEY; and KRYSTAL STASKO, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TYSON FARMS, INC. d/b/a RIVER 

VALLEY INGREDIENTS; JASON 

SPANN; HYDRASERVICE, INC., 

and JASPER WATER WORKS AND 

SEWER BOARD, INC.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:19-cv-1179-LCB1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class 

allegations. (Doc. 20). According to the defendants, the plaintiffs’ proposed class 

definition is a legally improper “fail-safe” class whose membership can only be 

determined after the case has been litigated. Id. at 2. The defendant correctly asserts 

that these types of class definitions are disfavored by the Eleventh Circuit. See 

 

1 This case is consolidated with Ashley, et al, v. Tyson Farms, Inc., et al., 5:19-cv-1180-LCB. 

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations in this memorandum opinion refer to the record in case 

number 5:19-cv-1179-LCB, Russell, et al. v. Tyson, et al.

FILED

 2020 Jun-08 PM 12:40

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:19-cv-01179-LCB Document 59 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 5
2

Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1277 (11th Cir. 2019). The plaintiffs’ 

proposed class definition is as follows:

All Alabama residents who have been personally injured and/or 

damaged or will in the future be personally injured and/or damaged as 

a result of the June 6, 2019 wastewater spill/contamination and the 

subsequent containment, handling, and/or remediation of said 

spill/contamination.

This class includes, but is not limited to, all Alabama residents who 

have experienced personal injury, pain, suffering, monetary damages, 

mental anguish, emotional distress, and/or humiliation as a result of the 

June 6, 2019 wastewater spill/contamination and the subsequent 

containment, handling, and/or remediation of said spill/containment.

(Doc. 1, p. 11-12).

The Eleventh Circuit has defined fail-safe classes as classes “whose 

membership can only be determined after the entire case has been litigated and the 

court can determine who actually suffered an injury.” Cordoba 942 F.3d at 1277

citing 1 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 2:3 (5th ed. 2016). 

Membership in the plaintiffs’ proposed class requires proof of at least two elements 

that they would be required to prove at trial, i.e., proximate cause and damages. 

Other judges in this District have defined fail-safe classes as ones that “use[] legal 

terminology whose application is linked to the ultimate merits of [the] case” and 

noted that “[c]lass eligibility would (at least partially) hinge on finding that any 

given plaintiff had a viable claim against [the defendant].” Hurt v. Shelby Cty. Bd. 

of Educ., No. 2:13-CV-230-VEH, 2014 WL 4269113, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 21, 

Case 5:19-cv-01179-LCB Document 59 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 5
3

2014). Fail-safe classes present, among other things, administrative difficulties in 

ascertaining class members. In Bohannan v. Innovak Int'l, Inc., 318 F.R.D. 525, 528 

(M.D. Ala. 2016) another district court in this Circuit noted that

Rule 23 has been construed to include an implicit requirement that the 

purported class be ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. 

Bussey v. Macon Cty. Greyhound Park, 562 Fed. Appx. 782, 787 (11th 

Cir. 2014). The objective criteria should allow class members to be 

identified in a manner that is administratively feasible, which means 

that identifying class members requires little, if any, individual inquiry. 

Id.

Where the proposed class definition requires the court to 

determine the merits of an individual class member's claims as a 

predicate to determining her membership in the class, the class is not 

ascertainable. See Likes v. DHL Express, 288 F.R.D. 524, 531–32 

(N.D.Ala.2012). These ‘fail-safe’ classes, which are framed in terms of 

legal conclusions, are not administratively feasible. They inevitably 

require mini-trials to determine which individuals belong to the class. 

William H. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:6 (5th ed.).

The plaintiffs argue that their class is not a fail-safe class because, they say, 

their definition does not include all of the elements they would need to ultimately 

prove at trial, i.e., that the defendants were negligent, acted wantonly, etc. The 

plaintiffs cite a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida for the proposition that “a class description or definition only constitutes 

a ‘fail safe’ class if the ‘definition incorporates all the elements of a ... claim.’” (Doc. 

48), quoting Fennell v. Navient Sols., LLC, No. 6:17-cv-2083-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 

3854815, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2019)(emphasis added). However, that slightly 

misrepresents what the court actually said in Fennell. In the quoted passage, the 

Case 5:19-cv-01179-LCB Document 59 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 5
4

court was simply noting that the proposed class definition in that particular case 

incorporated all the elements of the claim at issue. Later in the opinion, the court 

defined a fail-safe class as “one whose definition incorporates the elements of a 

successful claim, such that determining whether an individual is a member of a class 

‘front-ends a merits determination on [the defendant’s] liability.’” Id. quoting

Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 307 F.R.D. 684, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2015). This Court 

does not interpret that language to say that classes are fail safe only if the definition 

contains all of the elements of the alleged cause of action. 

Although the proposed class definition in the present case does not include all 

the elements of the alleged causes of action, the Court finds that it presents the same 

ascertainability issues as one that does. See Likes v. DHL Exp., 288 F.R.D. 524, 

531–32 (N.D. Ala. 2012), quoting Indiana State Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Indiana State 

Highway Comm'n, 78 F.R.D. 724, 725 (S.D. Ind.1978)(“Another ascertainability 

issue raised by DHL stems from the language of the class definition, which mirrors 

the determinations that must be made under the WARN Act to assess liability. Some 

courts have referred to this as a ‘fail-safe’ class in which ‘[t]he proposed class 

definition is in essence framed as a legal conclusion.’”). Because the plaintiffs will 

be required to prove damages and proximate causation at trial, there runs the 

possibility of a set of plaintiffs who, unable to prove damages and proximate 

causation – and therefore ultimate liability – would, by virtue of that failure, not be 

Case 5:19-cv-01179-LCB Document 59 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 5
5

included in the class. Consequently, those plaintiffs would not bound by the 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds that the purported class, as presently 

defined, is a legally improper fail-safe class. 

In their response to the defendants’ motion to strike, the plaintiffs asked for 

“leave to amend, refine, or clarify the class description contained in [their]

Complaint” should the Court find some merit in the defendants’ motion. (Doc. 48, 

p. 5). Leave to amend is hereby GRANTED. The plaintiffs also asked to conduct 

limited discovery in order to refine their class definition. The Court will set a 

telephone conference in the near future to discuss this matter as well as the 

jurisdictional discovery that was alluded to in the Court’s February 5, 2020, order 

staying discovery.2 After the telephone conference, the Court will enter an order 

setting a deadline for the plaintiffs’ amendment, any renewed motions, and a 

schedule for any needed discovery.

DONE and ORDERED June 8, 2020.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2 The Court’s order staying discovery (Doc. 56) is the subject of the parties’ joint motion for 

clarification that was filed on June 2, 2020. (Doc. 58). The Court will clarify any issues in the 

above-mentioned telephone conference.

Case 5:19-cv-01179-LCB Document 59 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 5