Smith v. Conocophillips Pipe Line Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43172
E.D. Mo.2014Background
- Landowners sued for property damage and medical monitoring alleging long‑running petroleum contamination (BTEX, MTBE) from a pipeline leak near 16062 N. State Route 94, West Alton, MO; Defendant later bought some affected parcels and removed homes and soil; pipeline out of service in 2009.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification for (1) a property‑damage class defined as current owners within a 0.25 mile radius of the Ellebracht property and (2) a medical‑monitoring class of residents within that radius since 2002.
- Plaintiffs relied on geologist Dr. Patrick Agostino (plume extent, lingering contamination, remediation needs) and toxicologist Dr. Richard Parent (medical monitoring necessity given benzene/lead exposure); Defendant moved to exclude both experts' opinions under Daubert.
- The parties disputed the scope of Daubert analysis at the certification stage; the court followed Eighth Circuit precedent limiting a full merits‑level Daubert inquiry and denied exclusion for class‑certification purposes.
- The court found sufficient preliminary evidence of contamination in the proposed property class area (soil/groundwater detections and expert opinion) to satisfy Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) predominance/superiority for a property‑damage class, but concluded Plaintiffs offered no evidence of actual exposure necessary to define a medical‑monitoring class.
- Result: property‑damage class certified (owners within 0.25 mile); medical‑monitoring class denied; Daubert motions denied without prejudice; class representatives and counsel appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are experts' opinions excluded at certification (Daubert)? | Agostino and Parent provide sufficient expert support for class issues; exclusion is premature. | Experts are speculative and lack scientific basis; full Daubert hearing required. | Denied without prejudice — Eighth Circuit precedent limits full Daubert scrutiny at certification; experts may be tested later. |
| Is the proposed property‑damage class (owners within 0.25 mi) sufficiently defined and linked to contamination? | 0.25 mi boundary based on detections and expert opinion; conservative revision from a larger radius; some positive soil/groundwater tests support linkage. | Boundary is overbroad; plaintiffs lack scientific proof contamination reached that far; many tests negative. | Held sufficiently definite and supported at this stage; some evidence of contamination in class area satisfies Rule 23 prerequisites. |
| Are Rule 23(a) prerequisites met (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy)? | Yes — ~61 properties in area; common nucleus (pipeline leak, alleged failure to remediate); named plaintiffs share interests and counsel. | Plaintiffs lack proof of injury/contamination; thus lack standing and cannot represent class. | All four 23(a) factors met for property class; named plaintiffs’ allegations suffice for Article III standing at certification stage. |
| Is a medical‑monitoring class certifiable? | Medical monitoring warranted given toxicology opinion on benzene/lead risks. | No evidence of actual exposure for class members; class definition too indefinite. | Denied — Plaintiffs presented no evidence of actual exposure tying class members to increased disease risk, so medical‑monitoring class is not sufficiently definite. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (certification inquiry focuses on Rule 23 requirements, not merits)
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (court should not conduct a merits inquiry when deciding certification)
- In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Zurn Pex, 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011) (limits the scope of Daubert analysis at class certification; resolve expert disputes only as necessary)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (full Daubert analysis required at certification when expert is critical to class certification)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (standards for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority)
- Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998) (23(b)(2) class cohesion and injunctive relief analysis)
- Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) (class may include members who have not suffered identical injuries when challenging a generally applicable practice)
- Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378 (D. Colo. 1993) (environmental contamination class certification where preliminary evidence links contamination to proposed class area)