Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

The plaintiffs in Behar, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157399 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2024), filed an action against Northrop Grumman Corp. and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., the current owners of Litton Systems, Inc., alleging that Litton’s manufacturing facility in Canoga Park used toxic chlorinated solvents like trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE). These substances have since spread into the groundwater, soil, and soil vapor, creating a toxic plume approximately 2.4 miles long and 1.8 miles wide. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion. The defendants filed several motions to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. The plaintiffs lived directly above the contaminated plume and claimed that toxic vapors may be seeping into their home, potentially causing health risks, and decreasing their property value. Dr. Boyle was hired to assess the impact of contamination on property values using hedonic regression and meta-analysis. Defendants challenged his methodology, arguing it was unreliable. The court found that while Dr. Boyle’s methods faced scrutiny, his testimony met the threshold for admissibility and was relevant for class certification purposes. Dr. Kram, an expert in environmental science, opined that residents are at risk of toxic exposure through vapor intrusion and that mitigation is necessary. The defendants argued that Dr. Kram did not provide specific evidence of vapor intrusion in individual homes. The court determined that Dr. Kram’s testimony was relevant and helpful to understanding the risks and need for mitigation, though his conclusions may be weighed later. Dr. Ryer-Powder, a toxicologist, provided opinions on the health risks of TCE and the pathways through which it could enter homes. The defendants challenged her reliance on certain reports and guidance documents. The court concluded that her qualifications and opinions were relevant and denied the motion to exclude her testimony. Dr. W. Richard Laton, a hydrogeologist with extensive experience, was hired to analyze the scope of subsurface contamination from a site, its impact on groundwater, and its effects on residents. Despite Dr. Laton’s qualifications and his detailed report on contamination and health risks associated with TCE (trichloroethylene), the defendants sought to exclude his testimony, arguing that he lacked expertise in certain technical areas and that his opinions are unreliable. However, the court ruled that Dr. Laton’s experience and methodology aligned with scientific protocols. Dr. Hugh Gorman, a historian specializing in industrial practices and environmental history, testified on the historical manufacturing processes and their role in contamination. The defendants challenged his qualifications, suggesting that his opinions were based on hearsay and lacked independent analysis. The court, however, ruled that Dr. Gorman’s testimony did not exceed his expertise and that excluding his testimony at this stage would be premature. Finally, the defendants argued that Dr. Matthew Tonkin, a hydrogeologist, formulated unreliable conclusions due to alleged deficiencies in his model. The court rejected these arguments, finding Dr. Tonkin’s analysis followed established scientific practices and that his testimony was suitable for class certification. The plaintiffs sought to certify two certify two classes related to property damage and mitigation claims against the defendants for negligence, nuisance, and trespass. The court found that the classes encompassed over 3,200 homes, thus satisfying the numerosity requirement. The court also determined that common issues such as the cause of contamination, damage to properties, and the need for mitigation were present for all class members, meeting the commonality requirement. The court ruled that the lead plaintiffs shared typical claims with the proposed class members. The court concluded that common questions of law and fact, including issues of negligence, nuisance, and trespass predominated over individual issues. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of class certification in Johnson, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28927 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2024). The plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to disclose that certain vehicles with panoramic sunroofs were prone to spontaneous shattering under typical driving conditions. The district court previously granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. On appeal, the defendant argued that the class failed to meet the commonality requirement, and that the district court improperly accepted the class’s “unperformed” damages model and allowed in the class definition class members who have never had a broken sunroof and were thus not similar. Id. at *4. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting class certification. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding several common questions of law and fact which predominated over individual inquiries. Id. at *2. Specifically, the district court noted the common questions of: (i) “the nature of the alleged defect;” (ii) “Nissan’s knowledge (or lack thereof) about the alleged defect;” (iii) “whether a reasonable consumer would find the omission of the defect material;” (iv) “whether the vehicles violated the implied warranty of merchantability;” and (v) the “extent to which Nissan’s non-disclosure constituted concealment.” Id. The Ninth Circuit opined that the district court correctly concluded that these were common questions that could be answered on a class-wide basis. The defendant argued that there was no evidence of the alleged common design defect that increases the likelihood of the sunroofs shattering. However,

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online