Avila v. Willits Environmental Remediation Trust
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1730
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Remco Hydraulics operated a chrome-plating facility in Willits, California; the Willits Environmental Remediation Trust oversaw site remediation starting from a 1997 consent decree.
- Plaintiffs, about 1,000 Willits residents, sued seeking medical monitoring and damages for alleged injuries from Remco contamination; several consolidated actions followed.
- District court imposed case management and discovery measures, including Lone Pine-like prima facie orders requiring non-resident/post-1988 residents to show exposure and causation with expert affidavits.
- The court struck the plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Levin) for failing to meet Daubert standards, and later granted summary judgment on exposure and causation for many plaintiffs.
- The court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations for multiple groups, including adults, minors, and a wrongful death claim, and taxed costs.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed as to timeliness of adult claims, and vacated the costs order; the panel also discussed preconception and intentional infliction claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lone Pine-style prima facie orders are permissible in toxic torts | Prima facie procedure appropriately narrows disputes and focuses expert evidence. | Such orders are permissible case-management tools within Rule 16 and Daubert review. | Permissible; district court did not abuse discretion in using prima facie disclosure to manage exposure/causation issues. |
| Whether district court properly excluded Levin's expert testimony under Daubert | Levin had relevant medical/toxicology expertise and should be allowed to testify. | Levin lacked proper qualification and used unreliable methods; his opinions were speculative. | District court did not abuse its Daubert gatekeeping; Levin's opinions were inadmissible for lack of foundation and reliability. |
| Whether the adult claims were timely under California discovery rules and CERCLA | Discovery rule tolled limitations; publicity and knowledge issues created triable fact questions. | Public knowledge and publicity triggered discovery; limitations barred claims filed after certain dates. | Reversed; the district court erred in granting summary judgment on statute of limitations for adult claims. |
| Whether preconception claims are cognizable against Whitman | Preconception tort duty should extend to defendants whose products/processes cause harm to offspring. | No duty owed to subsequently conceived offspring because Whitman provided no reproductive services or products. | Whitman owed no duty to subsequently conceived offspring; preconception claims rejected. |
| Whether the district court erred in awarding summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress | Whitman’s conduct exposed residents to harmful chemicals; distress was foreseeably caused. | Potter v. Firestone requires egregious conduct toward plaintiff; generalized public risk is insufficient. | Affirmed dismissal of IIED claim; conduct did not satisfy the required targeted egregious conduct standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions; standard of review)
- Claar v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (Lone Pine/limited evidentiary procedures in toxic torts)
- Abuan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 1993) (early Daubert/quality of expert testimony in toxic torts)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirmed use of Lone Pine-like procedures in exposure cases)
- O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal discovery rule tolling under CERCLA; two-step inquiry notice analysis)
- Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (weights of specialization and admissibility in expert testimony)
- Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 163 Cal.App.3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (California causation standard requiring expert testimony)
- Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 1993) (intentional infliction of emotional distress requires egregious conduct toward plaintiff)
- O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (CERCLA discovery rule tolling; notice analysis)