56 So. 3d 1109
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs reside in Alexandria, LA, near the Dura-Wood/creosote-treated facility historically owned by Martin and Beazer.
- Beazer operated the facility (Kopper's) from 1940 to 1970 and Martin owned it from 1970 to 1999.
- Plaintiffs allege long‑term releases of hazardous chemicals into soil, sediment, groundwater, air, and buildings.
- Defendants contested class certification via multiple pre‑trial motions, culminating in a two‑day certification hearing.
- Trial court granted class certification after thorough written reasons for judgment.
- Appellants challenge the certification on liability, predominance, and class definition grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common causation predominates over individual issues | Price asserts common off‑site emissions prove liability. | Martin/Beazer say liability and causation are not common issues due to multiple owners/years. | Yes; common causation found predominant. |
| Whether the class definition is ascertainable and proper | Class defined by property owners within 1.5 miles damaged 1944–present. | Past and present owners create conflicts; ascertainability questionable. | Class definition deemed ascertainable and permissible at this stage. |
| Whether including both past and present property owners is proper | Inclusion aids comprehensive remediation and policy goals. | Conflicts of interest and prescription issues risk prejudice. | Not meriting remand; trial court may redefine later. |
| Whether a 591B(3) predominance/superiority requirement is satisfied | Common questions predominate; class action superior to many suits. | Potential novel theory concerns and mixed individual actions challenge superiority. | Predominance and superiority satisfied under 591(B)(3). |
| Whether attic dust sampling and PAH/dioxin evidence are suitable for certification | Experts’ attic dust methodology is credible and EPA has used it. | Methodology contested; experts conflicted. | Support for admissibility of evidence for class certification; trial on merits continues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 13 So. 3d 546 (La. 2009) (establishes standards for analyzing class certification and common causation)
- McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., 456 So. 2d 612 (La. 1984) (art. 591 framework; preservation of efficiency and fairness in class actions)
- Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 703 So. 2d 542 (La. 1997) (novel theories may preclude certification when common issues lack framework)
- Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Industries Chemical Services, Inc., 759 So.2d 755 (La. 1999) (Damages need not be identical; common causation may suffice)
- Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 779 So.2d 1070 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2001) (courts may redefine class definitions flexibly under art. 591(A)(5))
- Clark v. Trus Joist MacMillan, 836 So.2d 454 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2002) (similar fact pattern supporting class certification for environmental claims)