Laurie Freeman, Sharon Mockmore, Beccy Boysel, Gary D. Boysel, Linda L. Goreham, Gary R. Goreham, Kelcey Brackett, and Bobbie Lynn Weatherman v. Grain Processing Corporation
895 N.W.2d 105
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Grain Processing Corp. (GPC) operates a corn wet‑milling plant in Muscatine since 1943; nearby residents sued alleging air emissions (odor, haze, particulate) interfered with use and enjoyment of property (nuisance, trespass, negligence). Plaintiffs limited damages to loss of use/enjoyment (no diminution or personal injury).
- Plaintiffs sought class certification for residents within 1.5 miles over the prior five years; proposed phased trial: (1) common conduct (GPC’s equipment/knowledge), (2) proof of class‑wide harm (lay representative testimony + air dispersion modeling), (3) formulaic damages (per‑hour/per‑property based on model).
- GPC opposed certification arguing lack of commonality/predominance, attacks on the air model, and that representative proof/extrapolation would deny due process and individual defenses.
- The district court certified the class but split it into two subclasses (close proximity and peripheral) based on dispersion/modeling; it found common questions predominated and formulaic damages permissible, reserving right to modify/decertify later.
- Iowa Supreme Court reviews class certification for abuse of discretion and held the district court did not abuse its discretion; commonality and predominance satisfied for the two subclasses and due‑process concerns did not require decertification at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commonality exists for class certification | Class members share the same injury from GPC’s emissions and common proof (course of conduct, emissions, modeling) will resolve central issues | No single common contention ties class members; experiences vary by location and time (invoking Dukes) | Commonality satisfied: a common nucleus of operative fact exists within two subclasses (close and peripheral) |
| Whether common issues predominate over individual ones | Liability (GPC’s course of conduct, knowledge, and whether a nuisance exists) is common; damages can be approximated by formula or later claims process | Individual issues (property‑by‑property causation, other pollution sources, differing experiences) predominate making class unmanageable | Predominance satisfied: common liability issues predominate; individual differences go to damages and can be managed (bifurcation, subclasses, claims administration) |
| Admissibility/use of representative/extrapolated evidence (air model, lay sample) | Representative lay testimony plus Dr. Rosenfeld’s AERMOD dispersion model can support class‑wide inferences about nuisance and allocation of damages | Model and extrapolation are flawed and mask individual defenses; extrapolation would violate due process (citing Fibreboard) | Representative evidence permissible at certification stage; attacks on model go to merits and do not defeat certification now; due process preserved by trial management options |
| Whether certification violates defendant’s due process rights | Plaintiffs’ plan preserves GPC’s ability to litigate defenses and the district court can manage trial to protect rights | Certification/extrapolation would deprive GPC of ability to raise individual defenses and contest damages for each class member | No due process violation at this stage; district court retained tools (bifurcation, decertification, subclasses) to protect GPC’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 848 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2014) (prior decision on preemption and statutory/common‑law claims; distinguishes nuisance law context)
- Miller v. Rohling, 720 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa 2006) (approves objective "normal person" nuisance standard and formulaic per‑diem damages)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (explains commonality requires a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (U.S. 2013) (objective elements can supply common questions for class certification; merits overlap limited)
- Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016) (reversed certification in groundwater contamination case where property‑by‑property issues predominated)
- Mejdreck v. Met‑Coil Systems Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirmed certification in contamination case where core liability proof was common)
- Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) (upheld class certification in mass‑toxic tort when defendant’s course of conduct was common to class)