Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC v. Gonzalez

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: Najam, Judge.
• Citation: Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC v. Gonzalez, 150 N.E.3d 238 (Ind. App. 2020)
• Decision Date: 18 June 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-2680
• Parties: CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL, LLC, Appellant-Defendant, v. Ricky GONZALEZ, Yvonne Gonzalez, Robert Scoles, and Tamara Scoles, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

150 N.E.3d 238

CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL, LLC, Appellant-Defendant,

v.Ricky GONZALEZ, Yvonne Gonzalez, Robert Scoles, and Tamara Scoles, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-2680

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED June 18, 2020

Attorneys for Appellant: Amy E. Romig, Jonathan P. Emenhiser, Christopher E. Kozak, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellees: Richard A. Cook, Yosha, Cook & Tisch, Indianapolis, Indiana, Steven D. Liddle, Nicholas A. Coulson, Liddle & Dubin, P.C., Detroit, Michigan

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] In August of 2016, Ricky Gonzalez, Yvonne Gonzales, Robert Scoles, and Tamara Scoles ("the Homeowners") filed a putative class-action complaint against Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC ("CFL") based on noxious odors emanating from a landfill operated by CFL. On interlocutory appeal from the trial court's certification of the complaint as a class action, CFL raises four issues for our review, which we restate as the following five issues:

1. Whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether to certify the class action.

2. Whether the trial court's adoption of the Homeowners' class definition is supported by substantial evidence.

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the class members would have common questions of law or fact.

4. Whether the court erred when it found that the class's common questions of law or fact would predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied CFL's motion to strike the Homeowners' designated evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August of 2016, the Homeowners filed their putative class-action complaint, which the Homeowners later amended. According to the amended complaint:

8. On frequent recurrent and intermittent occasions too numerous to identify individually, [the Homeowners'] propert[ies] including [their] neighborhoods, residences and yards have been and continue to be physically invaded by noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants.

9. The noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants which entered [their] propert[ies] originated from [CFL's] Landfill [ ("the landfill") ], located [in Jeffersonville, Indiana].

10. It is [the Homeowners'] informed belief that [CFL] either constructed or directed the construction of the facilities and exercised control and/or ownership over the landfill.

11. The Indiana Department of Environmental [Management, or "IDEM,"] has received numerous complaints from residents concerning the noxious odors emitted from [the] landfill.

12. On at least one occasion, [CFL] has been cited by [IDEM] for failing to adequately control the landfill gas generated by decomposing waste ....

13. The invasion of [the Homeowners'] propert[ies] by pollutants, noxious odors, and air contaminants has caused [the Homeowners] to suffer injuries including, but not limited to, exposure to pollutants, horrific odors, and air contaminants.

14. The invasion of [the Homeowners'] propert[ies] by pollutants, noxious odors, and air contaminants has interfered with [the Homeowners'] use and enjoyment of their propert[ies], resulting in damages ....

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 52-53.

[4] Further, the Homeowners alleged that they were appropriate representatives of a class of plaintiffs consisting of "[a]ll persons who have been owner/occupants and/or renters of residential property within three miles of the property boundary of the ... landfill at any time between August 12, 2010[,] and the present," which they believed captured "thousands of residents." Id. at 54. And, after reciting allegations relevant to the demand for a class action, the complaint claimed that CFL both had created a nuisance and had acted negligently. Specifically, the complaint alleged in relevant part:

27. The odors, pollutants and air contaminants invading [the Homeowners'] propert[ies] are indecent and/or offensive to the senses[ ] and obstruct the free use of their propert[ies] so as to substantially and unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and/or property, including in ... the following ways:

a. causing [the Homeowners] to remain inside their homes and forego use of their yards;

b. causing [the Homeowners] to keep doors and windows closed when weather conditions otherwise would not so require; and

c. causing [the Homeowners] embarrassment and reluctance to invite guests to their homes.

* * *

31. The injuries and damages suffered by [the Homeowners] are specially injurious to [them] as opposed to the general public because they uniquely suffer harm relating to the use and enjoyment of their land and property, and decreased property values, which are not harms suffered by the general public.

* * *

45. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of [CFL] to exercise ordinary care, [the Homeowners'] residences were invaded by noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants.

* * *

WHEREFORE, [the Homeowners], individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, pray for ... compensatory and punitive damages, and ... temporary, preliminary, and permanent orders for injunctive relief ....

Id. at 57-61.

[5] In December of 2018, the Homeowners moved to certify their complaint as a class action and designated evidence in support of that motion. CFL opposed that motion, objected to the admissibility of the Homeowners' designated evidence, and designated its own evidence in opposition. After a hearing in which the parties presented oral argument to the court, the court granted the Homeowners' motion and certified the class using the Homeowners' proposed class definition.

[6] In particular, after overruling CFL's objections to the designated evidence, in its written class-certification order the court related the designated evidence to the requirements necessary to maintain a class action in relevant part as follows:

• "joinder of over 1,200 plaintiffs would ... be impracticable."

• "[CFL's] actions or inactions have resulted in a common legal question of whether [CFL] has failed to comply with law and ha[s] allowed odor and emissions to escape from the landfill."

• "[The Homeowners'] claims are similar ... to what all residents would have to prove regarding the operation of the landfill[ ] as well as the inconvenience, frustration, and expected monetary loss calculations."

• "[The Homeowners] have pursued this litigation vigorously for over two years, and [they] have the same interest in the outcome as would be expected from other members of the class. The counsel for the [Homeowners] ha[s] ample experience in class action cases[ ] and ha[s] exhibited skill in arguing the issues in this matter."

• "[The Homeowners] sustained very common injuries during the same or similar periods, in the same vicinity, and their damages are likely to be determined in the same manner without many variances in the type of relief sought.... Because the number of individualized issues is expected to be minimal among the class members, those issues would not overwhelm any common issues."

Id. at 25-28. The court also stated that class litigation of the Homeowners' claims "will be more streamlined and efficient ... than litigating these odor-based claims on individual bases." Id. at 30. And, in a preamble of relevant class action legal standards, the court stated as follows:

10. "Determination of the propriety of class certification, however, should not turn on likelihood of success on the merits." Payton v. County of Kane , 308 F.3d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 2002). Indeed, a court may not engage in [an] analysis of the merits of the allegations in order to determine whether a class action may be maintained. Eggleston v. Chicago Journeyman Plumbers [Journeymen Plumbers'], Local Union No. 130 , 657 F.2d 890, 895 (7th Cir. 1981). The inquiry is limited to whether the requirements of [Trial] Rule 23 have been satisfied. E.g. , Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin , 417 U.S. 156, 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974).

Id. at 22 (footnote omitted). The court then certified its order for interlocutory appeal, which we accepted.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review and Trial Rule 23

[7] CFL appeals the trial court's certification of the Homeowners' complaint as a class action. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

The determination of whether an action is maintainable as a class action is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Appellate courts reviewing a class certification employ an abuse of discretion standard.^{[1 ]} The trial court's certification determination will be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. A misinterpretation of law, however, will not justify affirmance under the abuse of discretion standard.

Associated Med. Networks, Ltd. v. Lewis , 824 N.E.2d 679, 682 (Ind. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

[8] To maintain a class action, Indiana Trial Rule 23(A) requires the putative class-action plaintiffs to show each of the following four requirements:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

[9] In addition to those four requirements, Trial Rule 23(B) requires the plaintiffs to show one of the following:

(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of:

(a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or

(b) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other

...