294 F.R.D. 620
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Plaintiff Louise Moore sues Walter Coke, Inc. alleging emissions from defendant's Jefferson County, Alabama facilities contaminated her property and reduced its value.
- Plaintiff seeks damages for March 2, 1995 to present and remediation of hazardous substances remaining on her property.
- This is Moore's second federal pleading; prior Amended Complaint claimed negligence, wantonness, nuisance, trespass, and injunctive relief.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of ascertainable class, Rule 23(b) predominance, and Rule 23(a) qualifications, and injunctive relief claim issues.
- The court previously dismissed injunctive relief for failure to plead the elements and denied ascertainability and class certification at that early stage, granting leave to amend.
- Moore subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint adding a defined two-mile geographic boundary and enumerated substances, and sought leave to amend the injunctive relief claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of the proposed class | Class is ascertainable with a two-mile boundary map. | Class remains unascertainable due to undefined terms and merits-based determinations. | Denied; court finds two-mile boundary renders class ascertainable at this stage. |
| Rule 23(b) predominance and certification viability | Environmental tort claims can be certified if common issues predominate. | Class claims fail Rule 23(b)(3) predominance due to individualized inquiries. | Denied; motion premature, and certification should await discovery and development. |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Complaint alleges sufficient Rule 23(a) elements, including a two-mile class and common harms. | Plaintiff failed to plead Rule 23(a) elements properly. | Denied; the complaint is sufficiently pled under the liberal pleading standard. |
| Injunctive relief claim and leave to amend | Injunctive relief should be allowed; amendment needed to cure pleading defects. | Injunctive relief pleading is a formulaic recitation and should be dismissed without leave to amend. | Granted; plaintiff may amend to include a claim for injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rules for Rule 23 analysis require beyond-pleading discovery to certify)
- Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court may allow discovery to determine class certification)
- John v. Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2007) (illustrates when class definitions may be facially not ascertainable)
- Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 191 F.R.D. 398 (D.N.J. 1999) (explains churning claims and individualized proofs in class actions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rule of decision on class actions and commonality)