Ronda Crutchfield v. Sewerage & Water Board
829 F.3d 370
5th Cir.2016Background
- The Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project built the Dwyer Road Intake Canal in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward (2008–2013); excavation, pile driving, and dewatering allegedly damaged ~1,054 nearby homes.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court asserting state-law claims (inverse condemnation, negligence, strict liability, intentional torts) and sought to certify a class of property owners within 1,000 feet.
- Hill Brothers (general contractor) removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, invoking the government-contractor defense; the district court retained federal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification; the district court denied certification for lack of commonality, predominance, and superiority, finding predominance (individualized causation/damages) dispositive.
- On Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding individualized issues of causation and damages would predominate over classwide issues and thus certification was an abuse to grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: federal-officer removal via government-contractor defense | Removal improper because Hill Brothers failed to comply with Corps specs so defense unavailable | Hill Brothers has a colorable government-contractor defense entitling removal | Held: federal-officer removal proper; colorable defense exists for jurisdictional purposes |
| Class certification — predominance (causation) | Causation can be established classwide (analogous to Lombard); circumstantial proof and plaintiffs’ testimony suffice | Causation is individualized: different defendants, activities, times, soils, and structures require property-by-property proof | Held: Individualized causation predominates; class certification denied |
| Class certification — predominance (damages) | Damages can be computed by a common formula | No workable formula presented; damages vary by property age, size, condition, exposure, and include emotional harms | Held: Damages are individualized and weigh against predominance |
| Comparability to mass-tort precedent | This is a mass-tort style case suitable for class treatment like other multi-plaintiff torts | Unlike single-episode mass torts, this case involves multiple actors, multiple acts over five years, making class treatment unsuitable | Held: Distinguishing factor—multiple defendants/acts over time means prior single-episode mass-tort certifications are inapposite |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (establishes government-contractor defense for compliance with federal specifications)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance requires classes to be sufficiently cohesive for representative adjudication)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (distinguishes common vs. individual questions; common proof suffices where same evidence establishes each class member’s claim)
- Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 284 So.2d 905 (La. 1973) (state court consolidated claims where plaintiffs’ stipulated testimony supported causation)
- Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for class-certification decisions)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (federal-officer removal and government-contractor immunity principles)