two class actions alleged that the defendant ’ s pipe valve manufacturing facility improperly disposed of solvents, cutting oils, acids, and caustics, thereby contaminating the groundwater and soil in the surrounding area. The plaintiffs contended that the contamination migrated onto their nearby properties, causing both property damage and either present or potential future personal injury due to their exposure to the toxins. The plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, and the court denied the motions. The court ruled that issues related to liability, such as negligence, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, and punitive damages, would not predominate because many of the plaintiffs had asserted personal injury claims with complex, fact-intensive questions of damages and causation. The court opined that the individual and unique nature of the personal injury claims would make it difficult to establish that common issues predominated. The court also reasoned that many plaintiffs asserted personal injury claims arising from the Facility ’ s alleged contaminant dispersion and ground water contamination, and the proposed class definition excluded these claims. Accordingly, the court opined that, given the presence and prevalence of these non-property claims, liability issues relating to four discrete property-related torts did not predominate. The court also determined that the damages sought would not be susceptible to a class-wide assessment, and their availability would instead depend upon individualized, plaintiff-specific proof as to each element of the claimed damages. Id. at *16. The court found that a class action would not be the superior method of adjudication because it would ignore the non-property claims and thus address only a fraction of the total claims pending against the defendants. The court concluded that it could not certify a class that would exclude numerous theories of liability arising from the same allegedly unlawful conduct and leave nearly all of the complex questions for individual adjudication. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the numerosity requirement of class certification in a mass tort lawsuit entitled Macias, et al. v. BNSF Railway, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83418 (D. Kan. May 11, 2023). The plaintiffs filed a class action alleging trespass, negligence, and nuisance claims in connection with water damage to their homes caused by local flooding during a series of significant storms. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ proposed class definition was overbroad because it included individuals who were not harmed by the alleged conduct, as only some of the proposed class area was affected by the flooding. Additionally, the court determined that even if the class was narrowed to include only those who were in the affected area during the floods, it still failed to meet the numerosity requirement. The court opined that the plaintiffs had not shown that joinder of the individual claims would be impracticable, and failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the size of the proposed class or to demonstrate why joinder would be difficult or inconvenient. The court also disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that joinder would be impossible because there may be future unknown plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had not alleged an ongoing practice by the defendant that would lead to a stream of unknown plaintiffs. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because that the class definition was overbroad and the plaintiffs failed to meet the numerosity requirement. Finally, the court likewise denied class certification due to the individualized damages that would be available to the plaintiffs in Bryant, et al. v. Intercontinental Terminals Co. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106951 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2023). The plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendants, Intercontinental Terminals Co., LLC (ITC) and NSK Corp. alleging trespass, negligence, nuisance, manufacturing defect and products liability in connection with injuries suffered from a fire at the ITC Deer Park, Texas facility. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court denied the motion. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of the individuals residing in, and the businesses, governmental entities and schools located in, an area that they alleged received a ground- level concentration of particles at a rate of one gram per square meter. The court determined that common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues. The plaintiffs argue that a class action would be the best way to address their claims because common questions would outweigh individualized inquiries. The plaintiffs also contended that a bifurcated trial with separate phases for liability and damages would eliminate any individualized damages. The defendants asserted that individual differences among class members would require separate trials for each, thereby making a class action not the superior
9
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online