Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court
29 Cal.4th 1096, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 63 P.3d 913 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To certify a class action for medical monitoring, plaintiffs must present substantial evidence that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions. This requires a showing that key elements, particularly causation and the need for monitoring for each class member, can be proven with common, class-wide evidence rather than individualized inquiries.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1954, Lockheed Martin Corporation and its predecessors conducted manufacturing operations in the City of Redlands.
- In the course of these operations, Lockheed and other defendants discharged dangerous chemicals, including TCE, perchlorate, and other toxins.
- These discharged chemicals allegedly contaminated the drinking water supply for a large portion of the City of Redlands.
- Roslyn Carrillo and other residents of a specified geographic area in Redlands consumed this allegedly contaminated water over a period spanning from 1955 to the present.
- The residents were exposed to numerous different chemicals for varying durations and at different levels.
- This exposure allegedly placed the residents at an increased risk of developing serious diseases, necessitating future medical monitoring.
Procedural Posture:
- Roslyn Carrillo and other residents filed a class action lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Corporation and other defendants in the San Bernardino County Superior Court (trial court).
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a 'medical monitoring' class and a 'punitive damage' class.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, finding that common questions of law and fact predominated.
- The defendants filed writ petitions in the Court of Appeal challenging the trial court's certification order.
- The Court of Appeal consolidated the petitions, granted a writ of mandate, and directed the trial court to vacate its certification order, holding that individual issues predominated.
- The plaintiffs (petitioners) sought and were granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a toxic tort class action seeking medical monitoring, do common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions when plaintiffs rely on a 'minimum dosage' liability theory, but fail to provide substantial evidence that causation and the need for monitoring can be proven with class-wide evidence for a large and diverse class?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No, common questions of law and fact do not predominate. Although there is no per se bar to class certification for medical monitoring claims, plaintiffs must meet their burden of showing that common issues predominate over individual ones. Here, plaintiffs failed to provide substantial evidence that the essential elements of causation and damages could be proven with common, class-wide proof. The court found that significant individual issues would require separate adjudication, such as the specific dosage and duration of exposure for each of the 50,000 to 100,000 class members, as well as individual health factors like genetics, lifestyle, and preexisting conditions. The expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs was deemed too 'qualified, tentative and conclusionary' to support their theory that anyone exposed above a certain minimum threshold required monitoring. Therefore, the numerous and substantial individual questions regarding each person's right to recover render a class action inefficient and improper.
Concurring - Brown, J.
No, common questions do not predominate. While concurring with the majority's conclusion, this opinion argues that the majority failed to adequately convey the 'staggering' number and complexity of the individual issues. The case involves seven defendants, over twelve toxic substances, more than forty potential medical conditions, and a class of up to 100,000 people over a forty-plus-year period. Determining the need for 'additional' monitoring as required by Potter v. Firestone necessitates a highly individualized inquiry into each person's unique health profile even before considering exposure. Given this extraordinary complexity, no court could reasonably find that common issues predominate.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Moreno, J.
Yes, common questions do predominate sufficiently for class certification. The majority erred by failing to apply the highly deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard of review to the trial court's certification order. By scrutinizing and rejecting the plaintiffs' 'minimum dosage' liability theory and reweighing their expert testimony, the majority improperly ruled on the substantive merits of the case at the procedural certification stage. The trial court correctly found that core issues like the defendants' duty and breach were common to all, and plaintiffs' theory made exposure a common issue as well. This decision creates a de facto bar on medical monitoring class actions, undermining public policies of deterrence, public health, and access to justice for small claimants.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the evidentiary bar for certifying medical monitoring class actions in California. It clarifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on a generalized theory of class-wide exposure but must instead provide substantial, specific evidence at the certification stage demonstrating that causation and the need for monitoring can be proven with common proof. The ruling reinforces the individualized nature of the medical monitoring remedy established in Potter v. Firestone, making it much more difficult to certify large, diverse toxic tort classes. Consequently, the decision forces plaintiffs to either narrow their class definitions significantly or be prepared for extensive individual litigation, potentially limiting the utility of the class action device in mass exposure cases.
