Magaly Pinares v. United Technologies Corporation
768 F.3d 1161
11th Cir.2014Background
- Hundreds of homeowners in "The Acreage," Palm Beach County, sued Pratt & Whitney (P&W) alleging groundwater contamination from its nearby plant, asserting negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and Fla. Stat. § 376.313 claims; Pinares also alleged personal injury (renal cancer).
- District court initially dismissed complaints without prejudice and issued Lone Pine‑style orders requiring plaintiffs to produce prima facie evidentiary support (including expert affidavits) before reciprocal discovery.
- Plaintiffs supplied expert materials; P&W submitted opposing expert affidavits and moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the Lone Pine orders and for failure to state claims. The district court dismissed amended complaints without prejudice; after plaintiffs filed second amended complaints the court dismissed with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered (1) whether a Lone Pine order may be used pre‑dismissal and (2) the sufficiency of the second amended complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly/Iqbal.
- The panel held that district courts should not use Lone Pine orders to require plaintiffs to produce evidence before a court rules on a complaint’s legal sufficiency, and reversed the dismissal of the second amended complaints, finding the pleadings sufficiently plausible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Lone Pine orders pre‑dismissal | Lone Pine is inappropriate before Rule 12(b)(6) determination; plaintiffs need not produce prima facie proofs pre‑discovery | Lone Pine manages mass tort discovery burdens and weeds out meritless claims early | Court: Lone Pine should not be used to force evidentiary showings prior to resolution of pleading sufficiency under Twombly; conversion to summary judgment requires notice and reciprocal discovery |
| Sufficiency of contamination allegations ("contamination" plaintiffs) | Complaints allege shared aquifer, southerly groundwater flow, contaminants on P&W property and in Acreage test wells, expert confirmation—thus plausible contamination | Plaintiffs failed to allege individual parcel testing or that contamination exceeded regulatory standards; allegations are conclusory | Court: Aggregate factual allegations move claims from conceivable to plausible; individual well testing not required at pleading stage; dismissal was error |
| Regulatory‑level threshold — must contamination exceed MCLs to be actionable? | Plaintiffs: regulatory thresholds are evidence but not dispositive; damages may exist below regulatory limits | P&W: Florida law (St. Joe Co. v. Leslie) suggests recovery requires contamination above regulatory safe‑drinking standards | Court: Florida law does not impose a bright‑line regulatory threshold at pleading stage; compliance with standards is evidentiary, not dispositive; dismissal on that ground was error |
| Standing / recovery by proximity or anticipated‑contamination plaintiffs ("stigma"/diminution claims) | Proximity and anticipated plaintiffs alleged economic harm and plausible future contamination or stigma; nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and §376.313 claims viable without direct invasion | P&W: No actual contamination of those parcels; Leslie precludes stigma/diminution absent actual contamination | Court: Plaintiffs have Article III standing for economic and physical injuries; Florida precedents (Jones, Curd) allow claims and damages without ownership of actually contaminated property; dismissal was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility to factual allegations)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty., 507 U.S. 163 (court‑devised heightened pleading standards disapproved)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (discussing Lone Pine orders in mass torts)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (conversion of 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment when considering matters outside complaint)
- Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010) (Florida statute §376.313 and common‑law claims may support recovery for economic losses absent ownership of contaminated property)
- Jones v. Trawick, 75 So.2d 785 (Fla. 1954) (nuisance actionable without physical invasion; protecting enjoyment and use of land)