Brenntag Mid South, Inc. v. Smart
308 Ga. App. 899
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brenntag Mid South, Inc. appeals an order certifying an inconvenience/evacuation class in Smart et al.'s action arising from a glacial acetic acid release and mandatory evacuation in East Point, GA on December 15, 2004.
- Plaintiffs filed in federal court seeking class certification for evacuees; by letter agreement (Aug. 24, 2005) the federal suit was dismissed and refiled in state court seeking only the evacuation/inconvenience class, abandoning other subclasses.
- In Fulton County Superior Court (Dec. 12, 2006), Plaintiffs sought three classes: Property Damage, Evacuation, and Rescission; Brenntag opposed certification under the Letter Agreement and related defenses.
- Brenntag moved for partial summary judgment on property damage, fraudulent practices, and rescission on Dec. 12, 2008, and attempted to rescind the Letter Agreement on Jan. 12, 2009 for alleged breaches.
- Special Master Ichter recommended certification of Evacuation and Rescission Classes; the trial court adopted and certified the Evacuation Class under OCGA 9-11-23(a) and (b)(3), with Stokes, Smart, and Elmore as class representatives.
- On appeal, Brenntag argues errors concerning the Letter Agreement and the class certification analysis; the Georgia Court of Appeals reviews under a deferential standard for mass tort class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCGA 9-11-23(a) requirements met? | Smart, Stokes, Elmore; numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy established. | Brenntag contends deficiencies in typicality and other factors; disputes application of the Letter Agreement. | Evacuation Class satisfies 9-11-23(a) with caveat on Stokes' typicality |
| OCGA 9-11-23(b)(3) predominance and superiority satisfied? | Common issues predominate; class action efficient for single incident. | Individual issues could overwhelm class resolution; efficiency concerns remain. | Predominance and superiority recognized; certification affirmed for Evacuation Class except Stokes' representative status |
| Stokes' typicality/adequacy as Evacuation Class representative? | Stokes shares common evaucation-related claims. | Stokes released her settlement and cannot represent the class for evacuation claims. | Stokes not an adequate/typical representative; Smart and Elmore remain valid representatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Doctors Hosp. Surgery Center v. Webb, 307 Ga.App. 44 (Ga. App. 2010) (four-factor Rule 23(a) framework)
- R.S.W. v. Emory Healthcare, 290 Ga.App. 284 (Ga. App. 2008) (deference to trial court on certification; clearly erroneous standard)
- In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, 215 F.R.D. 660 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (commonality and predominance in mass tort class actions)
- Fuller v. Heartwood 11, 301 Ga.App. 309 (Ga. App. 2009) (federal-rule guidance for Georgia class certification analyses)
- EarthLink v. Eaves, 293 Ga.App. 75 (Ga. App. 2008) (class action superiority and manageability considerations)
- Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) (class action vehicle appropriate where injury is widespread and damages small)
- Village Auto Ins. Co. v. Rush, 286 Ga.App. 688 (Ga. App. 2007) (common questions predominate in class actions)
- In re Netbank, 259 F.R.D. 656 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (numerosity can be established by reasonable estimate)
- Flournoy v. Honeywell Intl., 239 F.R.D. 696 (S.D. Ga. 2006) (commonality standard for class actions)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (class certification standards; economic realities in litigation)