Trujillo v. Ametek, Inc., 3:15-cv-01394

Background

Plaintiffs (students and teachers at Magnolia Elementary) allege Ametek dumped chemical waste on adjacent property, creating a groundwater/soil plume and indoor air vapors that increased risk of latent disease and cancer.
Plaintiffs filed a class action in state court; defendants removed to federal court and plaintiffs amended to assert negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, and strict liability (strict liability later dismissed).
Defendants moved for a Lone Pine case-management order requiring each named plaintiff to produce a case-specific expert showing exposure, route, increased disease risk, and scientific basis for medical-monitoring claims. The Court issued a limited Lone Pine order requiring such reports.
Plaintiffs submitted declarations from five experts (hydrologist, geologist, toxicologist, internist/toxicologist, pediatric toxicologist) opining exposure, contaminant source, elevated concentrations, and increased health risks.
Defendants objected and sought dismissal with prejudice for failure to satisfy the Lone Pine/CMO requirements and relied in part on DTSC findings that the site was safe for occupancy.
The court denied defendants’ objections, holding plaintiffs made a sufficient prima facie evidentiary showing to proceed to discovery and that DTSC findings and Daubert-type critiques did not compel dismissal at the Lone Pine stage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs satisfied the Lone Pine/CMO prima facie evidentiary showing to proceed to discovery	Plaintiffs produced expert reports showing source, exposure, routes, elevated concentrations, and increased risk sufficient for a minimal Lone Pine showing	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to meet CMO requests (esp. the comparative increased risk element), urged dismissal with prejudice	Court held plaintiffs met the Lone Pine minimal prima facie showing; denied dismissal and allowed discovery to proceed
Whether compliance with the CMO (Miranda-modeled requests) is required to establish negligence prima facie	Plaintiffs contended the CMO is a discovery-management tool and only "some evidence" is required, not full medical-monitoring proof	Defendants argued full compliance with CMO/Miranda factors is needed to establish negligence/medical-monitoring entitlement	Court held Miranda factors guide medical-monitoring damages but are not elements of negligence; CMO is a gatekeeping tool requiring only a minimal evidentiary showing at this stage
Whether DTSC/agency findings foreclose plaintiffs’ claims	Plaintiffs argued agency conclusions are not binding in federal court and do not negate plaintiffs’ expert evidence	Defendants relied on DTSC findings that Magnolia is "safe for occupancy" to show plaintiffs’ claims are meritless	Court held DTSC findings are not dispositive; agency conclusions do not prevent plaintiffs from proceeding under Lone Pine minimal-showing standard
Whether court should resolve expert reliability/Daubert issues at Lone Pine stage	Plaintiffs argued Daubert challenges are premature; Lone Pine requires only a minimal Rule 26 showing	Defendants urged the court to scrutinize and exclude experts now, asserting inadequate and unreliable opinions	Court declined to resolve Daubert issues at this stage, noting Lone Pine is not a substitute for summary judgment and only a minimal scientific basis is required

Key Cases Cited

Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (describing Lone Pine orders as a tool to cull meritless mass-tort claims and noting district court discretion under Rule 16)
Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court authority to enter Lone Pine orders under Rule 16)
Steering Comm. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006) (Lone Pine requires plaintiffs to produce some evidence supporting a credible claim)
McManaway v. KBR, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 384 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (Lone Pine is not a substitute for summary judgment; it narrows and screens mass tort claims)
In re Digitek Prod. Liab. Litig., 264 F.R.D. 249 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (factors courts consider when evaluating Lone Pine requests)
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal. 4th 965 (Cal. 1993) (recognizing medical-monitoring damages as compensable items under traditional tort theories)
Miranda v. Shell Oil Co., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (articulating five-factor test for medical-monitoring entitlement)
In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 557 F. Supp. 2d 741 (E.D. La. 2008) (explaining Lone Pine minimal-showing standard and that plaintiffs need not present Daubert-proof expert reports to proceed)