Pruitt v. Allied Chemical Corp.
85 F.R.D. 100 (1980)
Rule of Law:
In a mass tort case, a single, large proposed class may fail certification under Rule 23 if individual questions of liability, defenses, and damages predominate over common ones, or if internal conflicts preclude adequate representation. However, a court may exercise its discretion under Rule 23(c)(4) to certify narrower, more homogenous subclasses where common issues do predominate and to bifurcate the proceedings between liability and damages.
Facts:
- Allied Chemical Corporation, through its agent Life Science Products, Inc., discharged toxic effluents associated with the manufacture of Kepone.
- This discharge resulted in the pollution of the James River, the Chesapeake Bay, and adjacent waterways.
- Numerous individuals and businesses in the commercial seafood industry in Virginia and Maryland allegedly suffered economic losses due to the pollution.
- The affected individuals included fishermen, crabbers, oystermen, marina owners, and seafood sellers, who depended on the waterways for their livelihood.
- The pollution and subsequent publicity allegedly harmed both the supply and marketability of seafood from the Chesapeake Bay area.
- Watermen from Virginia and Maryland, who were part of the proposed plaintiff class, have a long history of commercial and territorial disputes.
Procedural Posture:
- Twenty-nine named plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Allied Chemical Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Plaintiffs filed an original motion for class certification on January 24, 1977.
- The trial court initially denied the motion, pending further discovery by Allied Chemical.
- Additional named plaintiffs joined the action during the discovery period.
- On July 18, 1977, plaintiffs filed a renewed and amended motion for class certification.
- Allied Chemical responded with a brief in opposition and a motion to dismiss.
- The trial court held hearings and ordered the parties to file additional submissions before taking the motion for class certification under advisement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed class of approximately 30,000 diverse individuals in the commercial seafood industry, who allege economic harm from a single source of pollution, satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Merhige
No, a single class of this size and diversity does not satisfy the requirements for certification under Rule 23. While the proposed class meets the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a), it fails the adequacy of representation requirement due to the potential for antagonistic competitive interests between Virginia and Maryland watermen. Furthermore, the action is not maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) because monetary damages predominate over equitable relief. The proposed class also fails the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), as individualized questions of causation, liability, defenses, and damages overwhelm the common questions regarding Allied's polluting conduct. However, using the authority under Rule 23(c)(4), the court can create six manageable subclasses of Virginia plaintiffs, separated by occupation and whether they were affected by the governor's closure orders, for which common questions will predominate and a class action is the superior method of adjudication.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a detailed roadmap for analyzing class certification in complex mass tort litigation. It demonstrates that even when a single polluter causes widespread harm, the diversity of the victims' injuries and occupations can defeat certification for a single, broad class due to a lack of predominance and potential internal conflicts. The case is significant for its creative use of Rule 23(c)(4), showing how courts can salvage a potentially unmanageable class action by dividing plaintiffs into more coherent subclasses and bifurcating the issues of liability and damages. This approach balances the efficiency goals of class actions with the need for fair and manageable adjudication of individual issues.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Pruitt v. Allied Chemical Corp. (1980)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"