419 F. App'x 887
11th Cir.2011Background
- Raytheon appeals an interlocutory order certifying a class under Rule 23(f) in an environmental contamination case.
- Plaintiffs seek a class of all property owners in affected St. Petersburg neighborhoods based on alleged hazardous-waste disposal at Raytheon’s facility.
- Three-day district court evidentiary hearing was held on the motion for class certification with competing expert testimony on contamination extent and damages.
- Plaintiffs’ groundwater expert identified a roughly one-mile by 1.7-mile plume as the putative class area.
- Defendants challenged the methodology and scope of the class, arguing contamination was not shown for all proposed properties and that the damages model required individual evaluation.
- The district court certified the class despite unresolved conflicts among experts and declined to perform a Daubert-like critique at certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on class certification. | Raytheon argues issues are not sufficiently common for class treatment. | Raytheon contends conflicting expert evidence precludes class certification. | Yes; court abused discretion by not weighing expert conflicts. |
| Whether Daubert-style scrutiny is required at certification when experts are pivotal. | Plaintiffs claim merits should not predominate but some scrutiny is unnecessary. | Raytheon asserts no admissibility ruling was needed at this stage. | Yes; district court must weigh expert reliability before certifying. |
| Whether the court must decide contested expert issues prior to class certification. | Plaintiffs contend some common questions exist and can support certification. | Raytheon argues merits-focused weighing is inappropriate at this stage. | Yes; tough, contested expert issues must be resolved prior to certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard and weighing of proof at certification)
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (precedes district court error in Rule 23 analysis)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (rigorous analysis of Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (burden to prove propriety of class certification)
- American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010) (district court must conclusively rule on expert qualifications before certifying)