Karl Ebert v. General Mills, Inc.
823 F.3d 472
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- General Mills operated a facility in the Como neighborhood of Minneapolis (c.1930–1977); historic disposal of hazardous substances (including TCE) led to long-term remediation under state and federal oversight.
- In 2011–2013 General Mills (with MPCA) investigated soil vapor intrusion; sub-slab testing showed widely varying TCE levels across homes; VMSs were installed at some residences (118 installed; 327 tested homes had no detectable TCE).
- Homeowners who learned of vapor risk in 2013 sued General Mills seeking class certification for residential property owners in the neighborhood, alleging CERCLA, negligence, nuisance, willful misconduct, and RCRA claims; they excluded personal injury claims and seek property damages and injunctive relief (comprehensive remediation).
- The district court certified a hybrid class: (a) Rule 23(b)(2) class for liability/declaratory/injunctive relief and (b) Rule 23(b)(3) class for damages, bifurcating liability and damages phases; the court limited the certified liability issue to whether General Mills is liable to owners in the Class Area.
- General Mills appealed certification, arguing individualized issues of exposure, causation, and damages defeat Rule 23 commonality, predominance, and cohesiveness required for (b)(3) and (b)(2) certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality for Rule 23(a)(2) | The class suffered the same injury from General Mills' contamination of the geographic area; common questions (conduct, scope) suffice. | Individual exposure/causation/damage differences show no common injury across members. | Court assumed Rule 23(a)(2) commonality satisfied for analysis but resolved case under (b) requirements. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | A classwide finding on General Mills' contamination scope would resolve liability for all and predominate over individual issues. | Individualized proof of vapor presence, source attribution, property conditions, mitigation, and timing of purchase will predominate and defeat predominance. | Reversed: individualized issues of causation and damages predominate; certification under (b)(3) abused discretion. |
| Cohesiveness for Rule 23(b)(2) | A single injunction/declaratory relief (comprehensive remediation) can redress classwide injury. | Relief and liability are individualized; class lacks cohesion because remediation and exposure differ household-by-household. | Reversed: class lacks the necessary cohesiveness for (b)(2); single classwide injunction would not uniformly resolve members' claims. |
| Bifurcation / artificial narrowing of issues | Narrowing to liability phase preserves efficiencies; individual remedies addressed later. | Bifurcation and limiting certified issues artificially manufacture commonality and do not avoid the need for individualized trials. | Court held the district court abused discretion by narrowing issues to manufacture a certifiable class; many individual trials remain necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (class action prerequisites and commonality principle)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (rigorous predominance analysis for Rule 23(b)(3))
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality and limits on (b)(2) relief; single injunction requirement)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (predominance requires a classwide damages model tied to liability)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (distinction between common and individualized proof)