State of West Virginia ex rel., Municipal Water Works v. The Hon. Derek C. Swope, 835 S.E.2d 122

Plaintiffs (Sherman Taylor, David Bailey, Joanna Bailey) filed a putative class action against Municipal Water Works alleging customers were exposed to carcinogenic/polluted water (2016–2018), seeking damages and a medical‑monitoring fund.
Complaint defined two subclasses: (1) customers who suffered and were treated for health effects; (2) customers who require medical monitoring. Only one named plaintiff alleged actual injury at the time of certification.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a large class; the Circuit Court of Wyoming County granted certification on March 12, 2019, with brief, conclusory findings on Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
The judge who entered the certification order was a customer of Municipal Water (his residence and the county courthouse received water), making him a potential class member; he later sought recusal and was disqualified.
Municipal Water sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia arguing (1) the judge should have been disqualified because of his potential pecuniary interest and (2) the circuit court failed to perform the required rigorous Rule 23(a) analysis.
The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated the class‑certification order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge’s status as a water customer required disqualification	Judge’s membership in the class was not disqualifying or was too remote	Judge had a pecuniary interest as a potential class member; appearance of impropriety required recusal	Judge was a potential class member with a financial interest; disqualification was required and prohibition is proper
Whether the circuit court conducted the required rigorous Rule 23(a) analysis before certifying the class	Plaintiffs satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy; brief findings were sufficient	Municipal Water argued the findings were conclusory and insufficient given limited discovery and only one injured plaintiff	The circuit court’s cursory conclusions were inadequate; a thorough, detailed analysis of Rule 23(a) prerequisites is required; certification vacated
Whether a writ of prohibition was an appropriate remedy to vacate the certification order	Certification could stand pending appeal	Writ necessary because recusal and inadequate Rule 23(a) analysis caused non‑correctable prejudice; prohibition preferable to appeal in class‑standing contexts	Writ granted to prohibit enforcement of the certification order and remand for further proceedings

State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (1996) (factors for issuing writ of prohibition when lower tribunal exceeded powers)
In re W. Va. Rezulin Litig., 214 W. Va. 52, 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003) (Rule 23(a) prerequisites and abuse‑of‑discretion review for class certification)
Keith v. Gerber, 156 W. Va. 787, 197 S.E.2d 310 (1973) (judge with pecuniary interest is disqualified; prohibition appropriate)
Findley v. Smith, 42 W. Va. 299, 26 S.E. 370 (1896) (fundamental rule: a person cannot judge a cause in which he is interested)
State ex rel. Chemtall Inc. v. Madden, 216 W. Va. 443, 607 S.E.2d 772 (2004) (class certification requires thorough analysis and detailed findings)
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W. Va. 97, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995) (recusal to avoid appearance of impropriety)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits may be considered only to the extent relevant to Rule 23 prerequisites)
Tramonte v. Chrysler Corp., 136 F.3d 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (judicial recusal where judge or immediate family are class members with potential pecuniary interest)
State ex rel. West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Gaujot, 242 W. Va. 54, 829 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (clarifies limited role of merits in class‑certification analysis and need to consider merits when essential)