IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
2:11-md-02284
E.D. Pa.Aug 14, 2017Background
- DuPont marketed the herbicide Imprelis in 2010–2011; after reports of non-target tree damage the EPA investigated, sales were suspended, and DuPont created a Claim Resolution Process and a class settlement (MDL No. 2284).
- The settlement created a self-applicator class defined as persons/entities that purchased and applied Imprelis from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011; class members who did not opt out released DuPont from claims "arising from or relating to Imprelis."
- The court preliminarily approved the settlement in February 2013, set an opt-out deadline (June 28, 2013), and granted final approval in October 2013; the final judgment permanently enjoined non-opt-outs from prosecuting released claims.
- Aronimink Golf Club filed suit alleging tree damage from an Imprelis application in May 2012 and alleged at least $117,250 in damages; Aronimink had also applied Imprelis in May 2011 and did not opt out of the class settlement.
- DuPont moved to dismiss (and alternatively sought an injunction), arguing Aronimink is bound by the settlement as a self-applicator class member; the court converted the motion to summary judgment limited to class‑membership issues and allowed limited discovery.
- The court found Aronimink undisputedly applied Imprelis in May 2011, thereby making it a class member; because Aronimink failed to opt out and did not timely file a claim, the court granted DuPont’s motion and dismissed Aronimink’s complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aronimink is bound by the class settlement/release | Aronimink contends its May 2012 application is independent and the settlement should not bar damages from post-class-period applications | DuPont contends Aronimink applied during the class period (May 2011), is a class member who did not opt out, and thus released all claims arising from or relating to Imprelis | Court held Aronimink is a class member and its suit is barred by the settlement/release |
| Whether the settlement release is limited to damages from class-period applications | Aronimink argues the release should be read to cover only claims "resolved by this Settlement," which it construes as claims tied to class-period applications | DuPont argues the settlement language is broad and unambiguous: class membership is binary and releases claims "arising from or relating to Imprelis," not limited to a single application date | Court rejected Aronimink’s narrow reading and held the release applies broadly to claims related to Imprelis for non‑opt-outs |
| Whether due process requires clearer notice to bind absent class members to releases of post-class-period claims | Aronimink invokes Third Circuit precedents cautioning against binding absent class members on unclear notice | DuPont notes the settlement notice and agreement unambiguously advised class members of the release and opt-out procedure; Aronimink was not listed as an opt‑out | Court found notice and settlement language adequate and that Aronimink’s due process argument failed |
| Whether discovery or Rule 56(d) relief was warranted to explore settlement practices or claims paid for post-class-period applications | Aronimink sought additional discovery about DuPont claim payments and settlement negotiations | DuPont opposed further discovery; the court had already denied similar discovery requests in prior orders | Court denied additional discovery and Rule 56(d) relief and proceeded to grant summary judgment for DuPont |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir.) (summary judgment materiality/genuineness standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (standard for assessing evidence on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (movant’s initial summary judgment burden and nonmovant’s obligation)
- Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Ctr., 621 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.) (unsupported assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, 369 F.3d 293 (3d Cir.) (due process limits on binding absent class members to settlement terms)