In Re Bridgeport Fire Litigation
8 A.3d 1270
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- May 15, 2001 fire at Continental Business Center in Bridgeport, PA destroyed a multi-tenant complex causing widespread damages.
- Six initial plaintiffs sought class certification in 2001; court certified, later re-certified in 2003 and 2005, designating class representatives and counsel.
- 2006 Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint added defendants; case grew to 37 defendants and became In re: Bridgeport Fire Litigation.
- Discovery spanned years with hundreds of thousands of documents, numerous experts, and large-scale briefing and motions.
- Settlement negotiations culminated in a $35 million class settlement in 2008, with $11.6667 million in attorneys’ fees awarded; releases were executed by several named plaintiffs in 2009, raising mootness issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| validity of dismissals of non-class claims against defendants not certified | Professional et al. had no non-class claims against added defendants; no second certification required | Class action already certified; 2006 amendment did not create new non-class claims | Dismissals upheld; no separate non-class claims exist |
| propriety of reinstating MCIDA claim without class notice | Praecipe reinstate followed stipulated order; no hearing or class notice required | Reinstatement without notice violates class procedure and 1714 | Reinstate struck; reinstatement not allowed without proper process |
| propriety of dismissing defendants with class counsel stipulation but without hearing or notice | Counsel/clients supported dismissal; no need for 1714 hearing | Dismissals require court hearing or notice under 1714 | Dismissals upheld; no abuse of discretion |
| propriety of putative class-wide settlement and releases | Settlement reflects class-wide interests; substantial majority approved; releases valid | Some objections by Salmons and concerns about subrogation | Settlement approved; abuses not shown; releases upheld; mootness issues resolved in favor of settlement |
| award of attorneys’ fees in class action | Fee is justified by complexity, time, results achieved, and contingent risk | Fees excessive or not adequately justified | Attorneys’ fees approved; not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co., 465 Pa. 225, 348 A.2d 734 (Pa. 1975) (class action plaintiffs and members distinction; appellate review of settlements)
- Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1978) (named plaintiffs not prerequisite to settlement approval)
- Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 166 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 1999) (class representatives’ views need not control settlement approval)
- Laskey v. International Union, UAW, 638 F.2d 954 (6th Cir. 1981) (class counsel authorized to represent class interests despite objections by some members)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (court may limit communications with class members to protect fair conduct)
- Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Co. v. Hess, 556 Pa. 190, 727 A.2d 1076 (Pa. 1999) (settlement approval standards in class actions; abuse of discretion)
- Buchanan v. Century Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n, 259 Pa. Super. 37, 393 A.2d 704 (Pa. 1978) (criteria for approving class settlements; range of reasonableness)
- Glassmere Fuel Service, Inc. v. v. Clear, 900 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contractual releases; merging of written contracts governing settlement)