Terry Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Prods.
896 F.3d 405
6th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are owners of 540 properties in McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio, above two groundwater contamination plumes allegedly caused by Defendants’ historic operations (Chrysler/Behr facility and Aramark dry-cleaning facility).
- Contaminants are volatile organic compounds (TCE, PCE) that pose vapor-intrusion risks to structures; EPA designated the area a Superfund site and performed interim mitigation.
- Plaintiffs asserted eleven tort claims and sought Rule 23(b)(3) liability-only class certification for five causes of action; the district court denied (predominance problems under Ohio law as to injury/causation) but certified seven common issues under Rule 23(c)(4).
- Certified issues focused on defendants’ roles, foreseeability, abnormally dangerous activity, whether each facility’s contamination underlies class areas, whether defendants’ contamination/inaction created risk of vapor intrusion, and failure to investigate/remediate.
- Defendants petitioned under Rule 23(f). The Sixth Circuit granted review limited to the issue-class certification and AFFIRMED the district court, adopting the “broad view” of Rule 23(c)(4) in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(c)(4) may be used to certify issue classes when Rule 23(b)(3) predominance for the entire claim fails | Rule 23(c)(4) permits class treatment of particular issues that are amenable to common proof even if the whole claim lacks predominance | Issue certification cannot be used to "manufacture" predominance for the whole claim; (narrow view) predominance must be met first | Court adopts the broad view: issue certification is permissible; predominance/superiority applied to the selected issues rather than the entire claim |
| Whether the seven certified issues satisfy predominance | The issues are susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof (expert proof, common historical conduct/knowledge) and do not overlap with individual injury/causation inquiries | Defendants: individualized inquiries (temporal/locational variation; property-specific causation/injury) predominate and defeat class treatment | Held: certified issues are common, capable of class-wide proof, and individualized questions do not outweigh common ones; predominance satisfied for those issues |
| Whether class treatment of those issues is superior to alternative procedures | Class resolution of common issues conserves resources, promotes uniformity, and enables low-income claimants to pursue relief | Defendants argue manageability problems and that discovery/stipulations or individual suits better resolve issues | Held: Issue classing is superior—resolves core questions once for all and materially advances litigation; manageability concerns do not defeat superiority |
| Whether certifying issues and later using procedures (e.g., special master, bifurcation) raises Seventh Amendment/Reexamination Clause problems | Plaintiffs: no concrete procedure adopted yet; proper bifurcation can avoid Seventh Amendment problems | Defendants: reexamination of jury-tried facts (via special master/further proceedings) would violate the Reexamination Clause and Rules Enabling Act | Held: No present Seventh Amendment violation — no procedure has been adopted; district court must design post-jury procedures consistent with the Reexamination Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir.) (describing narrow standard of appellate review for class certification)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (defining common vs. individual questions and predominance framework)
- In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.) (endorsing issue certification regardless of whole-claim predominance)
- Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir.) (approving Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification where appropriate)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir.) (articulating the narrow view that a cause of action must satisfy predominance before issue certification)
- Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 655 F.3d 255 (3d Cir.) (evaluating issue certification under functional aggregate-litigation principles)
- In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 522 F.3d 836 (8th Cir.) (declining issue certification where aggregate treatment added little efficiency)
- Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir.) (reversing liability-class certification where liability inquiry still required individualized adjudications)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (discussing superiority, manageability, and fairness in class actions)