# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 14 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mel vi n Wall ace; Sh irl ey

Hard t; Lewis Sim

ps on ; Will ia m

Co bb ; Eri ca Dav is -Ho ld er; Ro te m

Co he n; Ju li an W ag ne r; R os e Wagn er; Erin Sti lwel l; Mari a Eug en ia Saen z Val ie nt e; Adam Bu rn ha m , in di vi du al ly and on be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Co nAg ra Fo od s, In c., do in g b us in es s as Hebr ew Nati on al , a Dela ware co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 19 , 20 13
Fil ed : Ap ril 4, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and LOKEN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Mel vi n W al la ce an d se ve ral ot he r na m ed co ns um ers (co ll ect iv el y , co ns um ers )

cl ai m so m e Heb r e w N at io na l be ef pr od uc ts are no t, as th e la be l read s, “ 10 0%

ko sh er.” Seek in g to rep res en t a cl as s co ns is ti ng of al l Heb rew Nati on al bu y ers in th eUni te d St at es ov er a m ul ti -y ear pe rio d, th e co ns um ers su ed Heb rew Nati on al ’s pa ren t

c o r po rat io n, Co nAg ra Fo od s, In c. (Co nAg ra), in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t, al le gi n g

nu m ero us vi ol at io ns of st at e la w. As th ei r pu rch as e an d co ns um pt io n of th e Heb rew 1

Nati on al br an d pr od uc ts was no t m ot iv at ed by fai th

, th e co ns um ers do no t as se rt an y

pe rs on al rel ig ious inj ur

y

. In st ead

, th e co ns um ers av er Co nAg ra’s rep res en ta ti on s th at

ko sh er is th e “ New Org an ic ,” a pr om is e of fo od pu rit y am id o t h e r pr od uc ts fu ll of

art ifi ci al in gr ed ie nt s, le d th em to pa y an un jus ti fie d pr em iu m fo r Heb rew Nati on al ’s

os te ns ib ly kos he r be ef.

Co nAg ra fir st rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t, inv okin g th e Cl as s Acti on Fai rn es s Act

of 20 05 (CAFA), 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 14 53

, th en m ov ed to di sm is s un de r Fed eral Ru le of

Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 ) an d (6 ), co nt en di ng th e co ns um ers la ck ed Arti cl e III

s t a n d i n g an d th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to ad dr es s rel ig io us qu es ti on s

un de rlyi ng th e co ns um ers ’ cl ai m s. W it ho ut ad dr es si ng st an di ng , th e di st ric t co ur t

de ci de d th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th e co ur ts fro m ad jud ic at in g th e co ns um ers ’

le ga l cl ai m s an d, wit ho ut no ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (c), di sm is se d th e cas e wit h

pr ejud ic e. The co ns um ers ap pe al

. Bec au se th e co ns um ers la ck tra di ti on al Arti cl e III

st an di ng to pu rs ue th is cas e, we va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t, rev ers e th e

pr ejud ic ia l di sm is sa l, an d in st ru ct th e di st ric t co ur t to rem an d th is cas e to st at e co ur t

as req ui red by 28 U.S.C. § 14 47 (c).

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fact ua l Al le ga tio ns
The co nsum er s pr em

is e th ei r su it on th e fo ll owi ng al le ga ti on s, whi ch we acce pt

as tru e at th is jun ct ur e. C o n A g r a m an uf act ur es Heb rew Nati on al m eat pr od uc ts (n ot ab ly ho t do gs ) us in g be ef sl au gh te r e d b y AER Serv ic es , In c. (AER). The

The co ns um ers as se rt co un ts fo r ne gl ig en ce; v i o l a t i on of th e Neb ras ka 1

Uni fo rm Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act, Neb . R ev . S ta t. § 87 -3 01 et s eq .; v io la ti on of th e Neb ras ka Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act, Neb

. Rev

. S t a t. § 59 -1 60 1 et se q.; vi ol at io n o f m

ul ti pl e o th er s ta te co ns um er p ro te ct io n l aws ; an d b reac h o f co nt ract

.

-2

-sl au gh te rin g ta ke s pl ace in th e faci li ti es of an ot he r en ti ty, Am e r i c a n F o od s Gro up ,

LLC (AFG), whi ch se ll s mea t cl as si fie d as ko sh er to Co nAg ra an d se ll s an y

rem ai ni ng m eat to th ird pa rti es

. AER em pl oys th e rel ig io us sl au gh te rers who pe rfo rm

th e “ sh ech it ah ” (i.e

., th e rit ua l sl as hi ng of th e co w’ s th r o a t ) al on g wit h th e ot he r

in di vi du al s resp on si bl e fo r m ark in g pa rti cu la r m eat as ko sh er. One su ch in di vi du al

is su pp os ed to in sp ect th e fres hl y sl au gh te red carc as s whi l e a n o t h e r ex am in es th e
lu ng s fo r si gn s o f i n

ju r y. If a lu ng can no t ho ld ai r be cau se , fo r ex am pl e, th ere is a

sm al l pe rfo rat io n, th e m eat sh ou ld be de em ed no n- ko sh er. A th ird pa rty ko sh er

cert ifi cat io n en ti ty na m ed Tria ng le K, In c., no m in al ly m on it or s whe th er AER, AFG,

an d Co nAg ra co m

pl y wit h th e ko sh er ru le s. Tr i a n g l e K is a fo r-p ro fit New Yor k

co m pa ny owne d a nd run by A y reh Ral ba g, an ort ho do x ra bb i.

Co nAg ra pr om ot es th es e ko sh er req ui rem en ts as a reas on to pu rch as e Heb rew

Nati on al p ro du ct s, whi ch co st m or e th an si m il ar no n- ko sh er co m pe ti to rs

. As

Am eri can co ns um ers so ug ht pu rer fo od s pr ep ared in acco rd an ce wit h st ri c t s a f e t y

st an da rd s, th e ko sh er fo od in du st ry ex pa nd ed by cat eri ng to no n- rel ig io us co ns um ers

. Lik e th e co ns um ers br in gi ng th is cas e, an in crea si ng nu m be r of Am eri can s ch os e to

pa y m or e fo r Heb rew Nati on al ’s su pp os e d l y k o sh er pr od uc ts ba se d on Co nAg ra’s

rep res en ta ti on s t ha t t he ko sh er l ab el was a gu aran te e o f qu al it y an d s up eri or tas te

.

Each Heb rew Nati on al pa ck ag e sa y s th e c o n t e n t s are “ Mad e W it h Prem iu m

Cu ts of 10 0% Kos he r Bee f.” Co nAg ra sa y s Heb rew Nati on al “ an swe r[s ] to a hi gh er

au th or it y ” an d se ll s on ly pr od uc ts th at “ m eet a hi gh er st an da rd .” Co nAg ra rep or te d

“ [t]he Kos he r tre nd is

. . . ga in in g m om en tu m as m or e pe op le co m e to un de rs ta nd th e

qu al it y co nn ect io n as so ci at ed wit h th e Kos he r se al
– whi ch cert ifi es bo th hi gh -q ua li ty

in gr ed ie nt s an d pr oc es se s th at m eet st ric t Kos he r st an da rd s.” He b rew Nati on al ’s

di rec to r of m ark et in g de cl ared “ [f]oo ds li ke Heb rew Nati on al ’s 1 00 pe rcen t ko sh er
be ef fra nk s g iv e p aren ts qu al it y ass ur an ce an d p ur it y

of i ng red ie nt s t he y

can tru st .”

-3

-Yet, acco r d in g to th e co ns um ers , “ m an uf act ur in g qu ot as —n ot ko sh er

ru le s— are th e de ci di ng fact or as to whe th er an y ba tc h of m eat ha rv es te d at th e AFG

sl au gh te rh ou se s is ul ti m at el y de si gn at ed as ko sh er or no n- ko sh er.” Em pl oyees face

su ch pr es su re to m eet a qu ot a of ap pr ox im at el y 70 % fo r ko sh er m eat th at “ th e ko sh er

in sp ect io n pr oc es s be co m es de fect iv e an d un rel ia bl e” an d so m e “ m eat fro m co ws th at

sh ou ld no t qu al ify fo r ko sh er cert ifi cat io n en ds up be in g m ark ed ko sh er an d us ed in

Heb rew Nat io na l p ro du ct s.”

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

Thi s cas e be ga n as a st at e cl as s act io n fil ed in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t. Co nAg ra

rem ov ed to fed eral c o u r t in th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, th en m ov ed fo r di sm is sa l

pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l P r o c ed ur e 12 (b )(1 ) an d (6 ). Alt ho ug h Co nAg ra

it se lf fi r s t in vo ke d fed eral juri sd ic ti on , Co nAg ra su bm it te d th at th e fed eral di st ric t

co ur t la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se (1 ) th e c o n s u mer s ’ cl ai m s were

“ ba rred ” by th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, an d (2 ) th e co ns um ers la ck ed Arti cl e III st an di ng

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Co nAg ra’s m ot io n un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ), reas on in g th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t st rip pe d th e fed eral co ur ts of su b je c t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er th e

co ns um ers ’ st at e l a w c l a i ms

. The di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed th at “ th e de te rm in at io n of

whe th er a pr od uc t is in fact ‘kos he r[]’ [is ] in tri ns ic al ly rel ig io us in n a t u r e,” so
ad jud ic at in g th is cas e “ wou ld ne ces sa ril y in tru de up on rab bi n ic al rel ig io us

au to no m y .” Fi nd in g “ it la ck [ed ] th e req ui si te su bjec t mat t e r juri sd ic ti on to pr es id e

ov er t h [ e ] di sp ut e,” th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e wit h pr ejud ic e. The

co ns um ers no w app eal

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

It is a fo un da ti on al pr in ci pl e in ou r le ga l syste m , en un ci at ed by Ju st ic e

Bran de is in a fam il ia r co nc ur ren ce, th at co ur ts m us t m ak e ev ery effo rt t o a v o id

de ci di ng no ve l co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on s. See Ash wan de r v. TVA, 29 7 U.S. 28 8, 34 5-

47 (1 93 6) (Bra nd ei s, J., co nc ur ri n g )

. “It is no t th e ha bi t of th e co ur t to de ci de

qu es ti on s o f a co ns ti tu ti on al na tu re un le ss ab so lu te ly ne ces sa ry to a dec is io n of th e

-4

-ca se .” Bu rto n v. Uni te d St at es , 19 6 U.S. 28 3, 29 5 (1 90 5) (em p h as is ad de d)

. A

co ro ll ary to Bu rto n’s card in al ru le is th at if a cas e m ay be res ol ve d on eas y an d se tt le d

co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd s, th e co ur t sh ou ld do so in st ead of de ci di ng th e cas e on di ffi cu lt

an d no ve l co ns ti tu ti on al gro un ds . See, e.g ., Ash wan de r, 29 7 U.S. a t 34 6 (Bra nd ei s, J., co nc ur rin g)

. “ [C]ou rts sh ou ld th in k ha rd

, an d th en th in k ha rd ag ai n, be fo re tu rn in g

sm al l cas es in to la rg e on es .” Cam ret a v. Green e, 56 3 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 1 S. Ct

. 20 20

, 20 32 (2 01 1)

. Rat he r th an ru sh in g to de ci de a di ffi cu lt Fi rs t Am en dm en t qu es ti on of

fir st im pr es si on in th is ci rcu it

, we be gi n with “ th e th res ho ld juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on :
whe th er” t he co ns um ers “ ha [v e] st an di ng to su e.” St eel Co

. v. Cit iz en s for a Bet te r

Env ’t, 52 3 U.S. 8 3, 1 02 (19 98 ).

A. Arti cl e II I St an di ng

Co ns id eri ng th e qu es ti on de no vo , se e, e.g ., Red Ri ve r Free th in ke rs v. Ci ty of
Farg o, 67 9 F.3 d 10 15

, 10 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), we co nc lu de t h e c o n su m ers la ck

tra di ti on al Arti cl e III s ta nd in g.

1. Eco no m ic Inj ury in Fa ct

Co nAg ra in it ia ll y arg ue s th e co ns um ers la ck Arti cl e III st an di ng be cau se th ey

su ffer ed no “ co nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed in jury.” Acco rd in g to Co nAg ra, th e

co ns um ers ’ fai lu re to al le g e “t h a t t h ey ke ep ko sh er” is fat al to th ei r cas e. The

co ns um ers ret or t th at th e fact ua l in jury th ey al le ge was pe cu ni ary, no t rel ig io us : th ey
cl ai m to ha ve “ pa id a pr em iu m pr ic e fo r a de cep ti ve ly m ark et ed pr o d u c t t ha t fai le d

to m eet th e m an uf

act ur er’s gu aran te e.” On t hi s p oi nt , Con Agr a’s arg um en t is li tt le

m or e th an a di sp ut e ov er ho w be st to read th e co ns um ers ’ co m pl ai nt in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e co ns um ers

. If th e co ns um ers ’ co m pl ai nt is acce pt ed as t r u e , t he

co ns um ers m ay ha ve pa id to o m uc h fo r Heb rew Nati on al pr od u c ts ba se d on

Co nAg ra’s m is le ad in g rep res en ta ti on s. W he n th e al le ge d ha rm is “ eco no m ic ,” “ th e ‘inju ry in fact ’ qu es ti on is st rai gh tfo rward .” Hein v. Free do m Fro m Rel ig io n Fo un d.,

In c., 55 1 U.S. 58 7, 64 2 (2 00 7) (So ut er, J., di ss en ti ng ); acco rd

, e

. g

. , Fri en ds of th e

Eart h, Inc. v. Laid la w Env tl

. Serv s. (TOC), In c., 52 8 U.S. 16 7, 18 4 (20 00 ) (h ol di ng

-5

-pl ai nt iff

s ha d st an di ng be cau se th ei r “ eco no m ic in te res ts ” were “ di rect ly affe ct ed ”);

Ben Oeh rle in s & So ns & Dau gh te r, In c. v. Hen ne pi n Cn ty., 11 5 F.3 d 13 72

, 13 79 (8 th

Ci r. 19 97 ) (co nc lu di ng ev en “ in di rect ” fin an ci al ha rm “ co ns ti tu te s an in jury in fact ”).

Th e co ns um ers ’ al le ge d eco no m ic ha rm —ev en if on ly a few pe nn ie s each —i s a

co nc ret e, no n- sp ecu la ti ve in jury. Co nAg ra’s arg um en t o n t hi s p oi nt m us t fa il

.

2. Par tic ul ar iz ed, Actu al Inj ury in Fa ct

Yet Co nAg ra ha s an ot he r st an di ng ch al l e n g e —t hi s on e well fo un de d.

Co nAg ra arg ue s th at ev en if th e co ns um ers wou ld ha ve o v e r p ai d if th e Heb rew

Nati on a l pr od uc ts th ey bo ug ht were no t act ua ll y ko sh er, th e co ns um ers “ ha ve no t

al le ge d th at th e pr od uc ts th ey each pu rch as ed were de fect iv e.” Co nAg ra an al og iz es

t h i s to a pr od uc t de fect cas e in whi ch so m e pr od uc ts are ad m it te dl y de fect iv e , b u t

m os t a re no t. The co ns um ers ’ al le ga ti on s do no t es ta bl is h th at al l or ev en mos t

Heb rew Nati on al pr od uc ts were no t ko sh er, whi ch m ean s th e pa rti cu la r pa ck ag es of

pr oc es se d be e f t he y pu rch as ed m ay ha ve be en —an d in de ed m or e th an li ke ly

were— pr ep ared in acco rd an ce wi th m in im um ko sh er s ta nd ard s.

Arti cl e III req u i r e s “ an in jury [to ] be co nc ret e, pa rt ic ul ar iz ed

, an d ac tu al or

im m in en t.” Mo ns an to C o

. v

. Geert so n Seed Farm s, 56 1 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 0 S. Ct

. 27 43

, 27 52 (2 01 0) (em

ph as is ad de d) . An al le ge d i nju ry can no t b e “ to o sp ecu la ti ve

fo r Arti cl e III pu rp os es .” Lujan v

. D e f e n d e r s of W il dl ife

, 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 56 4 n.2
(1 99 2)

. If th ere is no “ act ua l” ha rm , th en th ere m us t at le as t be an “ immi ne nt ” ha rm

. Id . As th e Su pr em e Co ur t em ph as iz ed jus t l as t year, “ m ere s pe cu la ti on ” th at in jury

di d or m ig ht oc cu r “ can no t sa ti sf y th e req ui rem en t th at an y in jury in fact m

us t be

fai rly tra ceab le to ” th e al le ge d so ur ce. Cl ap pe r v. Am ne st y In t’l USA, 56 8 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 1 33 S. Ct. 1 13 8, 1 14 8 (2 01 3)

.

The co ns um ers ’ al le ga ti on s fai l to sh ow th at an y of th e pa rti cu la r pa ck ag es of

Heb rew Nati on al b e e f th ey pe rs on al ly pu rch as ed co nt ai ne d no n- ko sh er be ef. The

co ns um ers fran kl y ad m it th at “ it is im po ss ib le fo r an y reas on ab le co ns um er to de te ct ”

-6

-whe th er pu rp or te dl y ko sh er m ea t i s n o n- ko sh er. In st ead

, th e co ns um ers pi n th ei r

Arti c l e III ho pe s on th e al le ga ti on th at th ey “ pa id a pr em iu m pr ic e fo r th e Heb rew

Nati on al pr od uc ts pu rch as ed be li ev in g th em to be 10 0 % s t r i c t ly k os he r, whe n th ey

weren ’t.” The co ns um ers m ai nt ai n th is ge ne ral al le ga ti on , th at th e no n- ko sh er st at us

of so me pa ck ag es of be ef ta in te d al l Heb rew Nati on al ’s pr od uc ts

, m ean s th ey “ are no t

req ui red to al le ge th e sp eci fi c pr od uc ts or pa cka ge s th at fai le d to m eet th e rep res en te d

st an da rd .” (Em

ph as is ad de d)

.

The co ns um ers ’ arg um en t is in co ns is te nt wit h Arti cl e III. The Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s m ad e it cl ear th at st an d i n g m us t be pa rti cu la riz ed

, m ean in g th e al le ge d “ in jury

m us t affe ct th e p la in ti ff i n a pe rs on al an d in di vi du al way .” Lujan , 5 04 U.S. a t 56 0

n.1 (em ph as is ad de d)

. In th e co nt ex t of defec ti ve pr od uc ts

, “ it ‘is no t eno ug h’ fo r a pl ai nt iff ‘to al le ge th at a pr od uc t li ne co nt ai ns a de fect or th at a pr od uc t is at ris k fo r

m an ife st in g th is de fect ; rat he r, th e pl ai nt iff s m us t a l l eg e th at th ei r pr od uc t ac tu al ly

exh ib it ed th e al le ge d de fect .’ ” In re Zurn Pex Pl um bi ng Pro ds

. Liab

. Lit ig

., 64 4 F.3 d

60 4, 61 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ) (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng O’ Neil v. Si m pl ic it y , I nc ., 5 74

F.3 d 5 01 , 50 3 (8 th Cir . 20 09 )).

W it ho ut a n y pa rti cu la riz ed reas on to th in k th e co ns um ers ’ own pa ck ag es of

Heb rew Nati on al be ef act

ua lly ex hib ite d the al le ge d non- kosh er de fect

, th e co ns um ers

la ck A rti cl e III st an di ng to su e Co nAg ra. Accep ti ng th e co ns um ers ’ va rio us

al le ga ti on s, it rem ai ns en ti r e l y p o ss ib le

, m ay be pr ob ab le

, th at th e pa ck ag es of be ef

th ey pe rs on al ly p u r c h a se d an d co ns um ed m et th e “ st ric t” st an da rd s ad ve rti se d by

Co nAg ra. Eve n s up po si ng th e 7 0% k os he r qu ot a m ean t s om e b eef was im pr op erl y

cert ifi ed as ko sh er, th e co ns um ers gi ve no reas on to th in k al l th e b e e f mar ke d as
ko sh er un de r th e qu ot a di d no t m eet ko sh er st an da rd s. As we can no t di sc ern fro m th e

co m pl ai nt ho w m an y pa ck ag es were ta in te d wit h no n- ko sh er b e ef, it is un cl ear

-7

-whe th er ev en a ba re m ajor it y of Heb rew Nati on al pa ck ag es were no t ko sh er. W hi ch 2

m ean s , i t i s pu re sp ecu la ti on to sa y th e pa rti cu la r pa ck ag es so ld to th e co ns um ers

were ta in te d by no n- ko sh er be ef, whi le it is qu it e pl au si bl e Co nAg ra so ld th e

co ns um ers exa ct ly wh at wa s pr omi se d : a hi gh er qu al it y , ko sh er m eat pr od uc t. Tim e

a nd ag ai n th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rem in de d lo wer co ur ts th at sp ecu la ti on a n d

co njec tu re are no t in

juri es co gn iz ab le un de r Arti cl e III. See, e.g ., Cl ap pe r, 56 8 U.S.

at

__ _, 1 33 S. Ct. at 11 48

.

3. In jury in L aw
The co ns um er s ’ effo rt to di st in gu is h th ei r cas e fro m a m in e-ru n pr od uc t

li ab il it y cas e is un co nv in ci ng : “ ‘A h, bu t th is i s n o t a pr od uc ts -li ab il it y cas e!’ So
pl ai nt iff s res po nd .” In re Bri dg es to ne /F ire st on e, In c., 28 8 F.3 d 10 12

, 10 16 (7 th Ci r.

20 02 ). The co ns um ers “ de sc rib e th e in jury as fin an ci al rat he r th an ph y si cal an d se ek

to m ov e th e su it ou t of th e to rt do m ai n an d in to th at of co nt ract (th e [p ro du ct ] was no t

th e fla wles s on e de sc rib ed an d th us is no t m erch an ta bl e, a warra nt y th eo r y) an d

co ns um er frau d (o n th e th eo ry th at se ll in g” be ef pr od uc ts th a t m ig ht no t be ko sh er,

“ an d th us wor th le ss th an rep res en te d, is frau du le nt ).” Id

. at 10 17

. Arti cl e III can no t

be so eas il y

foo le d.

Viewi ng th e co ns um ers ’ arg um en t m os t char it ab ly, th e arg um en t pro ceed s in

th ree st ep s. Fi rs t, m

ul ti pl e st at es ha ve crea te d cau se s of act io n th at do no t requ ire a

pa rti cu la riz ed sh owi ng of i nd iv id ua l in jury to reco ve r. Seco nd , Con gr es s ex te nd ed

fed eral juri sd ic ti on to th es e cau se s of act io n un de r CAFA. Thi rd

, CAFA’s ex te ns io n

of fed eral juri sd ic ti on to th es e st at e cau se s of act io n m ean s th e co ns um ers ne ed on ly

Fo r ex am pl e, ev en if on ly ha lf of a l l c o w s p ro ces se d by AER an d AFG m et 2

ko sh er st an da r d s (m ean in g 20 % of al l co ws were m ark ed im pr op erl y ) fiv e ou t of

ev ery se ve n co ws mar ked as ko sh er wou ld st il l be ko sh er

. Fo r m os t of th e b eef
la be le d as ko sh er no t to be ko sh er, in fact

, on e wou ld ha ve to as su m e fewer th an 35 %
of al l co ws pr oc es se d by AER an d AFG m et ko sh er req ui rem en ts —an as su m pt io n fo r whi ch th ere i s n o b as is in th e co m pl ai nt

.

-8

-sh ow a ba re st at ut or y vi ol at io n— in jury in la w rat he r th an an in jury in fa ct

—t o sa ti sf

y
Arti cl e III. Ass um in g th e fir st st ep is c o r r e c t (an as su m pt io n we m ak e to av oi d

un ne ces sa ry an al y si s of st at e la w), we are no t co nv in ced by th e co ns um ers ’ arg um en t

at th e o th er t wo s te ps

.

To in te rp ret CAFA as a co ng res si on al at te m pt to ex te nd fed eral juri sd ic ti on to

cas es in vo lv in g no in

jury in fa ct wou ld fo rce us to pr es um e—wi th ou t an y ba si s in th e

st at ut or y te xt

, se e 28 U.S.C. § 14 53

, an d in co nt rad ic ti on to lo ng -s et tl ed co ns ti tu ti on al

pr eced en t, se e, e.g ., Lujan

, 50 4 U.S. at 56 0— th at Co ng res s in te nd ed to st ret ch

, if no t

br eac h, th e co ns ti tu ti on al li m it s on fed eral juri sd ic ti on

. W e ne ve r as su m e th e

pe op le ’s el ect ed rep res en ta ti ve s wou ld so cas ua ll y di sr eg ard th e Co n s t i t u t io n th ey

ha ve swo rn to up ho ld

. See, e.g ., Edwar d J. DeBar to lo Co rp

. v. Fl a. Gul f Co as t Bl dg

. & Co ns tr. Trad es Co un ci l, 4 85 U.S. 56 8, 5 75 (1 98 8)

. To th e co nt rary, rec og ni zi ng

th at “ Co ng res s is pr ed om in an tl y a la wy er’s bo dy,” we “ as su m e th at ou r el ect ed

rep res en ta ti ve s

. . . k n o w th e la w.” Alb ern az v. Uni te d St at es , 45 0 U.S. 33 3, 34 1
(1 98 1) (o m is si on in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns omi t t e d ). Our “ res pe ct fo r

Co ng res s” al so le ad s us to “ as su m e [Co ng res s] le gi sl at es in th e li gh t of co ns ti tu ti on al

li m it s.” Ru st v. Su ll iv an , 50 0 U.S. 17 3, 19 1 (1 99 1)

. Fo r th es e reas on s, “ [w]ith ou t th e
‘clear es t in di cat io n’ th at Co ng res s in te nd ed to en act a co ns ti tu ti on a l l y su sp ect

st at ut e,” Uni on Pac. R.R. v. DHS, 73 8 F.3 d 88 5, 89 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng NLRB

v. Driv ers Loc al 63 9, 36 2 U.S. 27 4, 28 4 (1 96 0) ), we “ co n s t r u e t h e s t at ut e to av oi d
[co ns ti tu ti on al ] pr ob le m s,” De Bart ol o, 4 85 U.S. at 5 75

.

The co ns um ers’ j ur isd ic tiona l th eo ry pr es en ts a se rio us co ns ti tu ti on al pr ob le m

. Arti cl e III, to be su re, ve st s Co ng res s wit h si gn ifi can t au th or it y ov er fed eral
juri sd ic ti on

. Co ng res s c a n “ el ev at [e] to th e st at us of le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in juri es

co nc ret e, de fa ct o ”—i .e., fa ct ua l —“ in juri es th at were pr ev io us ly in ad eq ua te in la w,”
Lujan

, 50 4 U.S. at 57 8, w h i c h m ean s “ [t]he act ua l or th reat en ed in jury req ui red by

Art. III may ex is t so le ly by vi rtu e of ‘stat ut es crea ti ng le ga l rig ht s, th e in va si on of

whi ch crea te s st an di ng ,’ ” W art h v. Sel di n, 42 2 U.S. 49 0, 50 0 (1 97 5) (q uo ti ng Lin da

-9

-R

. S

. v

. R i ch ard D., 41 0 U.S. 61 4, 61 7 n.3 (1 97 3) ). Bu t Co ng res s’ ab il it y to do s o

rem ai ns fir m ly ci rcu m sc rib ed by Arti cl e III it se lf. See, e.g ., Ass ’n of Data Pro ces si ng

Serv

. Org s., Inc. v. Cam

p, 39 7 U.S. 15 0, 15 4 (19 70 ). As the Su pr em e Co ur t sai d in
Lujan

, “ ‘[Stat ut or y ] br oa de ni ng [o f] th e cat eg or ie s of in ju r y t h a t may be al le ge d in

su pp or t of st an di ng is a d i f f e r e n t matt er fro m ab an do ni ng th e req ui rem en t th at th e

pa rt y se e ki ng re vi ew m

us t hi mse lf ha ve su

ff er ed an in

ju ry .’ ” 50 4 U.S. at 57 8
(al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng Si erra Cl ub v. M or to n, 4 05 U.S.

72 7, 7 38 (19 72 )).

“ [T]he req ui rem en t of in

jury i n f a c t is a ha rd fl oo r of Arti cl e III juri sd ic ti on

th at ca nn ot be re mov ed by st at ut e .” Su m m ers v. Eart h Is la nd In st

., 55 5 U.S. 48 8, 49 7
(2 00 9) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Rat he r th an co nf ro nt in g th e di ffi cu lt co ns ti t u t i o n a l

qu es ti on whe th er Co ng res s can dr il l th ro ug h th is ha rd flo or of in jury in fa ct by

crea ti ng an in

jury in la w (i.e

., a st at ut or y cau s e o f act io n req ui rin g no sh owi ng th e pl ai nt iff was pe rs on al ly an d actu al ly ha rm ed ), “ we fo ll ow ‘the tra di ti on al ru le ’ an d 3

‘ind ep en de nt ly in qu ire whe th er th ere is an ot he r in te rp ret at io n, no t rai si ng

. . . se rio us

co ns ti tu ti on al co nc ern s, th at m ay fai rly be as cri be d to [th e st at ut e].’ ” Uni on Pac., 73 8

F.3 d a t 8 9 3 (al te rat io n an d om is si on in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng DeBar to lo

, 48 5 U.S. at

57 7)

.

Co ng res s cl earl y in co rp or a t e d A r ti cl e III’s tra di ti on al li m it s in to CAFA. In

dr aft in g th e Act, Co ng res s wa s n o t r e q u i red to res ta te ex is ti ng st an di ng la w, n or to

sp eci fy th at Arti cl e III li m it ed CAFA’s reac h, be cau se “ Co ng res s le gi sl at es ag ai ns t

Thi s co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on rece nt ly reac he d th e Su pr em e Co ur t wit ho ut 3

y ie ld in g an an swe r. See Fi rs t Am

. Fi n. v. Edwar ds

, 56 7 U.S.

__ _,

__ _ , 1 3 2 S. Ct

. 25 36

, 25 36 -3 7 (2 01 2) (p er cu ria m ) (d is m is si ng th e writ of cert io rari as im pr ov id en tl y
gr an te d)

.

-1 0-th e ba ck gr ou nd of

. . . st an di n g

. ” B e nn et t v. Sp ear, 52 0 U.S. 15 4, 16 3 (1 99 7)

. 4

Co ng res s pa ss ed CAFA to “ res to re th e in te nt of th e fram ers of th e Uni te d St at es

Co ns ti tu ti on by pr ov id in g fo r Fed eral co ur t co ns id er a ti on of in te rs ta te ca se s of

n a t i o n a l im

po rta nc e un de r di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on .” CAFA, Pu b. L. No. 10 9– 2

, § 2( b) (2 ), 11 9 St at

. 4, 5 (2 00 5) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Th i s s t a t ed pu rp os e is who ll y

in co ns is te nt wit h th e no ti on Co ng res s wis he d to reject Arti cl e III’s hi st or ic in jury in fa ct req ui rem en t. CAFA’s rep eat ed refe ren ce to “ cas es ” m us t be read to in co rp or at e

th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s well -k no wn ex pl ic at io n of th at wor d’s co ns ti tu ti on al m ean in g. See, e.g ., Lujan

, 50 4 U.S. at 56 0. W e th eref or e ho ld CAFA do es no t pu rp or t to

ex te nd fed eral juri sd ic ti on to st at e cl ai m s— if an y ex is t— pe rm it ti ng reco ve ry fo r ba re

s t at ut or y vi ol at io ns wit ho ut an y ev id en ce th e pl ai nt iff s pe rs on al ly su ffer ed a r e a l

,

no n- sp ecu la ti ve in

jury in fa ct

.

Not on ly ha ve th e co ns um ers fai le d to pr ov id e an y ba si s to th in k th e pa rti cu la r

pa ck ag es th ey pu rch as ed were ta in te d, t h e y a f fir m at iv el y al le ge th ey co ul d no t

po ss ib ly te ll if th e pa ck ag es were no t ko sh er. Bec au se th e co ns um er s s u f f e red no

“ pa rti cu la riz ed [] and act ua l” in jury, Mo ns an to , 56 1 U.S. at

__ _, 1 30 S. Ct. at 27 52

,

we are bo un d to co nc lu de th e co ns um ers la ck tra di ti on al A r ti cl e III st an di ng an d

CAFA do es no t ex te nd fed eral juri sd ic ti on to th is cas e. See Cl ap pe r, 56 8 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S . Ct. at 11 48 ; Zu rn , 64 4 F .3d at 6 16

.

B. Rem edy
By a di ffer en t ro ut e, we ha ve reac he d th e sa m e co nc lu si on as th e di st ric t co ur t:

th e fed eral co ur ts la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er th is cas e. Bu t th is do es no t m ean th e di st ric t

co ur t was co rrec t in di sm is si ng th e cas e wit h pr ejud ic e. W he n it be co m es cl ear a cas e

or ig in al ly fil ed in fed er a l co ur t do es no t be lo ng th ere be cau se th e pl ai nt iff s la ck

W hi le Ben ne tt ex pr es sl y ad dr es se d pr ud en ti al st an di ng , th e po in t is ev en m or e 4

ap pl ic ab le he re, fo r un li ke pr ud en ti al st an di ng , Arti cl e I I I s t a n di ng can no t be

“ ne ga te d” by Co ng res s, “ ex pr es sl y ” or ot he rwis e. Ben ne tt

, 52 0 U.S. at 16 3; se e, e.g ., Cam p, 3 97 U.S. at 1 54

.

-1 1-Arti cl e III st an di ng , ge ne ral ly th e ap pr op ria te rem ed y is to di sm is s wi th ou t pr ej ud ic e

.

See, e.g ., Con st it ut io n P art y of S .D. v. Nels on , 63 9 F .3d 41 7, 4 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

If, on th e ot he r ha nd

, th e cas e di d no t or ig in at e i n f e d e r a l c o ur t bu t was

rem ov ed th ere by th e de fen da nt s, th e fed eral co ur t mus t rem an d th e cas e to th e st at e

co ur t from whe nc e it cam e. “ If at an y ti m e be fo re fin al jud gm en t it app ears th at th e
di st ric t co ur t la ck s su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , th e ca se sh al l be re man de d .” 28

U.S.C. § 14 47 (c) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; se e al so 28 U.S.C. § 14 53 (c)( 1) (s pe ci fy in g th at

, wit h on e in ap pl ic ab le ex cep ti on , § 14 47 “ sh al l ap pl y to an y rem ov al of a cas e un de r

th is se ct io n” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). The se wor ds

, “ on th ei r face

, gi ve

. . . no di sc ret io n

to di sm is s rat he r th an rem an d an act io n.” In t’l Pri m at e Pro t. Leag u e v

. A d m’rs of

Tul an e Edu c. Fu nd

, 50 0 U.S. 72

, 89 (1 99 1) (o m is si on in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d) (rev ers in g an d rem an di ng “ wit h in st ru ct io ns th at th e cas e be rem an de d to th e [s ta te co ur t]”); se e al so , e.g., Mc Gee v . Sol ic it or Gen. o f Ri ch m on d Cnt y ., Ga., 72 7

F.3 d 13 22

, 13 26 (1 1t h Ci r

. 20 13 ). Bec au se th is cas e be ga n in th e Fi rs t Ju di ci al

Dis tri ct Co ur t, Dak ot a Co un ty, Mi nn es ot a, th at is wher e th is cas e m us t re tu rn

. 5

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t, re ve rs e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s di sm is sa l

wi t h pr ejud ic e, an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to ret ur n th is cas e

to th e Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t fo r la ck of f ed eral juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Ev e n if th e di st ric t co ur t were rig ht th at th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t st rip pe d t h e 5

fed eral co ur ts of juri sd ic ti on ov er th is cas e, rem an d wou ld st il l be th e co rrec t rem ed y be cau se § 14 47 (c) pl ai nl y ap pl ie s to an y la ck of “ su bjec t mat t e r juri sd ic ti on ,” no t

m erel y on e p red ic at ed on m is si ng Arti cl e III s ta nd in g.

-1 2-