Madison Ex Rel. Hebert v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C.
637 F.3d 551
5th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Chalmette Refining released petroleum coke dust that migrated onto the Chalmette National Battlefield, exposing attendees and their families.
- Plaintiffs seek class damages for property damage, personal injury, emotional and economic harms arising from the incident.
- The district court allowed discovery on class certification; Chalmette deposed the five named class representatives; plaintiffs conducted little discovery.
- Plaintiffs moved under Rule 23(b)(3) for class certification, proposing a class defined by exposure at the battlefield during a narrow time window.
- The district court orally granted certification after a hearing; a written order subsequently followed, and proceedings were stayed pending this appeal.
- On appeal, Chalmette argues the district court failed to perform the rigorous predominance analysis required by Rule 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Madison argues common issues predominate due to single exposure facts. | Chalmette contends exposure/dose vary, requiring individualized trials. | District court abused discretion; predominance not shown. |
| Superiority of class action | Plaintiffs contend class is superior for efficient resolution. | Chalmette asserts individualized actions are superior given varied exposures. | Superiority not adequately established at certification. |
| Rigorous analysis requirement | Court did not rigorously analyze common vs. individual issues. | District court relied on a simplified exposure theory. | Abuse of discretion for failing to conduct rigorous analysis. |
| Trial administration and plan | A trial plan could manage common issues; bifurcation was contemplated in other cases. | No proper trial plan was presented to manage issues. | Insufficient trial plan; certification improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1992) (mass tort certification requires phased trial plan or similar management)
- Steering Committee v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006) (mass torts require rigorous predominance and consideration of trial administration)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (importance of rigorous analysis and preserved ability to manage class action)
- Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005) (requirement to conduct a close look at cases before certification)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to show Rule 23 prerequisites are met)
- Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (mass tort class actions require careful balancing of common vs. individual issues)
- Robinson v. Tex. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, 387 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2004) (administration of trial is essential to certification ruling)