Coffie v. Fla. Crystals Corp.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 19-80730-CIV-SMITH
• Citation: 460 F.Supp.3d 1297
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
• Parties: Clover COFFIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

460 F.Supp.3d 1297

Clover COFFIE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 19-80730-CIV-SMITH

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed May 8, 2020

Joseph C. Schulz, Matthew T. Moore, The Law Offices of Berman & Berman, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, Steve W. Berman, Pro Hac Vice, Ted Wojcik, Pro Hac Vice, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Seattle, WA, Zachary West, The Law Offices of Berman and Berman, P.A., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiffs Clover Coffie, Elijah Smith, Shante Legrand.

Joseph C. Schulz, The Law Offices of Berman & Berman, Boca Raton, FL, Zachary West, The Law Offices of Berman and Berman, P.A., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff Jennie Thompson.

Gabriel Ernesto Nieto, Joseph Peter Klock, Jr., Rasco Klock Perez Nieto, Coral Gables, FL, Jennifer Ann McLoone, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Miami, FL, David Scott Dee, Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Bush, Dee, LaVia & Wright, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, David Brent Dwerlkotte, Pro Hac Vice, Mark D. Anstoetter, Pro Hac Vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Florida Crystals Corporation, Okeelanta Corporation, Osceola Farms.

Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Gary Vergil Perko, Mohammad Omar Jazil, Hopping Green & Sams, Tallahassee, FL, Jennifer J. Kennedy, Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, LLP, Saint Petersburg, FL, David J. Abbey, Pro Hac Vice, Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, LLC, St. Petersburg, FL, Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida.

Brian M. McPherson, Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, Eugene K. Pettis, Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Mark R. Ter Molen, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy S. Bishop, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant United States Sugar Corporation.

Jennifer Ann McLoone, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Miami, FL, David Brent Dwerlkotte, Pro Hac Vice, Mark D. Anstoetter, Pro Hac Vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Flo-Sun Incorporated, American Sugar Refining, Inc.

Brian M. McPherson, Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, Eugene K. Pettis, Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants Sugarland Harvesting Co., Independent Harvesting, Inc.

Forrest Lee Andrews, Mark A. Hendricks, Lydecker Diaz, LLC, Jennifer Ann McLoone, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Miami, FL, Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Trucane Sugar Corporation.

Andrew Samuel Connell, Jr., Litchfield Cavo, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant J & J Ag Products, Inc.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

RODNEY SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants United States Sugar Corporation, Independent Harvesting, Inc., Sugarland Harvesting Co., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Trucane Sugar Corporation, King Ranch, Inc. and J & J AG Products, Inc.’s (jointly "U.S. Sugar Defendants" or "U.S. Sugar") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint [DE 81], Plaintiffs’ response [DE 104], and U.S. Sugar's amended reply [DE 109]. Also before the Court is Defendants Florida Crystals Corporation, Osceola Farms Co., Okeelanta Corporation, and Trucane Sugar Corporation's (jointly "Florida Crystals Defendants" or "Florida Crystals") Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [DE 84], Plaintiffs’ response [DE 105], and Florida Crystals’ reply [DE 108]. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [DE 10], brought pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, seeks damages, medical monitoring, and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and two putative classes for damages caused by Defendants’ preharvest sugarcane burning. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants farm sugarcane on approximately 400,000 acres in the areas south and southeast of Lake Okeechobee and around the towns of Belle Glade, South Bay, Pahokee, Clewiston, Moore Haven, and others (the "Affected Area").¹ (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendants use a method for harvesting sugarcane that burns off the outer leaves of the sugarcane prior to harvesting. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 45.) The preharvest burns generally occur during the six-month period from October through March. (Id. at ¶ 46.) The burns are done on 40 to 80 acre tracts of land at a time and are regulated by the Florida Forest Service. (Id. at ¶ 47.)

This preharvest burning causes smoke, particulate matter ("PM"), dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental carbon and organic carbon to migrate onto, to be deposited upon, and to contaminate Plaintiffs’ and the proposed class members’ land and to expose Plaintiffs and the proposed class members to these pollutants. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 50.) The burning produces many hazardous compounds, including benzo[a ]pyrene (classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") as a confirmed human carcinogen), naphthalene (classified by IARC as a possible human carcinogen), acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, flourene, phenanthrene, anthracene, flouranthene, pyrene, benzo[a ]anthracene (classified by IARC as a possible human carcinogen), benzo[k ]flouranthene (classified by IARC as a possible human carcinogen), indenol[1,2,3-cd ]pyrene (classified by IARC as a possible human carcinogen), benzol[g,h,i ]perylene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, styrene, and o,m,p -xylene. (Id. at ¶ 51.) The smoke and ash (referred to as "black snow") from the preharvest burning travels through and gets deposited onto properties in the Affected Area, causing property damage, such as discoloration of buildings and cars, and causes medical conditions, such as respiratory problems, within the affected communities. (Id. at ¶ 52.) The burning also results in Plaintiffs being exposed to the pesticides used by Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Plaintiffs allege that there are green alternatives to preharvest burning that Defendants refuse to adopt. (Id. at ¶¶ 57-62.)

Plaintiff Coffie resides in and owns property in Belle Glade, Florida, which is in close proximity to many of Defendants’ sugarcane fields. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff Smith is a resident of and owns property in Clewiston, Florida, which is also in close proximity to many of Defendants’ sugarcane fields. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff Legrand resides in Belle Glade, Florida, also in close proximity to many of Defendants’ sugarcane fields. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Legrand has been exposed to hazardous and dangerous pollutants from Defendants’ sugarcane agriculture activities. (Id. )

Plaintiffs allege that the burning has led to a diminution of their property values and that they have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their property, unnecessary and substantial nuisance, and long-term health effects. (Id. at ¶¶ 56, 63.) Plaintiffs also allege that as a result of Defendants’ burning activity the Affected Area has been prevented from growing economically and has been denied equal chance of benefitting from overall economic growth and from stimulus programs. (Id. at ¶ 75.) Plaintiffs allege that residents of the Affected Area are at a higher risk than the rest of the population for developing various diseases, including respiratory conditions, because of the increase in particulate matter as well as other compounds. (Id. at ¶¶ 76-83.)

Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: (1) a Property Owner's Class consisting of "[a]ll persons and legal entities (past or present) who own or have owned real property located within the Affected Area during the applicable statute of limitations period, including the period following the filing date of this action" and (2) a Medical Monitoring Class consisting of "[a]ll persons (past or present) who have resided in the Affected Area for at least one pre-harvest sugarcane burn season during the applicable statute of limitations period, including the period following the filing date of this action." (Id. at ¶¶ 122, 123.)

The Amended Complaint alleges seven counts against all Defendants: (1) negligence on behalf of the Property Owner Class; (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity on behalf of the Property Owner Class; (3) strict liability pursuant to section 376.313, Florida Statutes, on behalf of the Property Owner Class; (4) trespass on behalf of the Property Owner Class; (5) nuisance on behalf of the Property Owner Class; (6) medical monitoring on behalf of the Medical Monitoring Class; and (7) injunctive relief on behalf of both classes.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the facial sufficiency of a complaint. The rule permits dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It should be read alongside Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff is still obligated to provide the "grounds" for his entitlement to relief, and a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

When a complaint is challenged under Rule 12(b)(6), a court will presume that all well-pleaded allegations are true and view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. American United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez , 480 F.3d 1043, 1066 (11th Cir. 2007). However, once a court "identif[ies]...