Glenn Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co, 655 F.3d 255

Background

Named plaintiffs Gates reside in McCullom Lake Village, Illinois, near a Ringwood, Illinois facility accused of releasing vinyl chloride.
Defendants Morton International and Rohm & Haas owned/operated the Ringwood facility; Rohm & Haas acquired Morton in 1999 and Rohm & Haas Chemicals, LLC. has operated since 2005.
Plaintiffs alleged multiple contamination pathways, focusing on vinyl chloride exposure via a shallow aquifer to air, seeking medical monitoring and property-damage relief.
Class certification was sought for medical monitoring (1968–2002 exposure) and property damage (current or since 2006 ownership) with exclusions for brain cancer and other solvent-exposure claims.
District Court held that individual issues predominated on exposure, causation, medical necessity, and contamination scope, denying both classes.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the denial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3); court affirmed denial, finding lack of common proof and cohesion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can medical monitoring be certified under Rule 23(b)(2)?	Plaintiffs argue common exposure proof justifies cohesion for monitoring relief.	Defendants contend individualized exposure and risk assessments defeat cohesiveness.	No; lack of cohesive common proof denied certification.
Can medical monitoring be certified under Rule 23(b)(3)?	Plaintiffs contend predominance can be shown with common exposure theory.	Defendants assert individualized causation/damage predominate over common issues.	No; individual issues predominate over common issues, defeating certification.
Is Zannetti's isopleth-based exposure evidence admissible as common proof of exposure above background?	Isopleths reflect class-wide exposure to vinyl chloride as common proof.	Isopleths rely on averages and assumptions not reflecting individual exposures.	No; isopleths do not provide class-wide exposure proof applicable to all members.
Is the 0.07 µ/m3 regulatory threshold an appropriate standard for liability?	Regulatory threshold supports a universal risk standard for class members.	Regulatory standards are population-based and not determinate for individuals.	No; regulatory standards cannot establish a uniform liability threshold for all individuals.
Should a property-damage class or an issue-class be certified given individual contamination factors?	Common issues could resolve liability for property damages.	Property contamination and damages depend on site-specific factors; no cohesiveness.	No; individual issues predominate; no certification of property class or liability-only class.

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) requires cohesion; class-wide injunctive relief cannot cover individualized monetary relief)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 113 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 1997) (causation and exposure proof in mass torts must be individualized)
Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998) (medical monitoring class certification requires cohesiveness and common proof)
Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2009) (rigorous analysis of Rule 23 findings; abuses of discretion review standard)