County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 87-CV-646 (JBW).

Decision Date14 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-CV-646 (JBW).,87-CV-646 (JBW).
PartiesCOUNTY OF SUFFOLK, a municipal corporation, Robert Alcorn, Christopher S. George, Fred Harrison, Peter Maniscalco, William P. Quinn, and Custom Extruders, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Stone & Webster Engineering Company, Charles R. Pierce, Wilfred O. Uhl, Charles J. Davis, and Andrew W. Wofford, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Hill, Betts & Nash by Bernard Persky, Kenneth F. McCallion, Gregory W. O'Neill, James W. Johnson and Lawrence P. Kolker, New York City, E. Thomas Boyle, County Atty. of Suffolk County, Hauppauge, N.Y., and Laura Sager, Sp. Counsel, New York City, for plaintiff Suffolk County.

Shea & Gould by Michael Lesch, Ronald H. Alenstein and John G. Nicolich, New York City, for individual defendants.

Susan E. Silverman, Hicksville, N.Y., for defendant Long Island Lighting Co.

Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon by Laurence V. Senn, Jr. and Judith A. Lockhart, New York City, for defendant Stone & Webster Engineering.

MEMORANDUM

WEINSTEIN, District Judge:

Plaintiffs move for certification of a class in this RICO suit. See this court's memorandum and order of May 18, 1988, outlining the allegations. Suffolk County v. Long Island Lighting Co., 685 F.Supp. 38 (E.D.N.Y.1988). The court plans to issue a memorandum and order denying certification for the reasons stated orally on the record at full argument on September 2, 1988. It now notifies the parties of its intention so that they can prepare for the impending trial without the distraction of the class action issue.

This litigation is being pressed by, and all litigation costs are being paid by, the County of Suffolk. The County has interests which may differ considerably from those of members of the class. The County's interests include its potential liability for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax refunds claimed by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), the County's stated policy to close and demolish the Shoreham Nuclear reactor, other pending litigations to which both the County and LILCO are parties, and a complex political dispute involving the Governor and New York Legislature. The County cannot serve as a proper class representative here because its supervision of this lawsuit may be driven by its other dealings with LILCO.

The individual plaintiffs cannot represent the class since their substantial legal costs have been paid by the County. Their counsel might well have a conflict of interest between the putative class and the entity paying legal fees — Suffolk County.

Representation of the class requires particularly delicate judgments. Subclasses may be necessary. There may be conflicts between prior ratepayers and new customers of LILCO. The former may receive substantial recoveries at the possible expense of the latter.

The motion for class certification must be denied on the ground that "the representative parties" will not ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 29, 1990
    ..." 'the representative parties' will not 'fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.' " County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1405, 1406 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4)). 3 The plaintiffs continued to prosecute the action in their individual ......
  • County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 14, 1989
    ...in various other pending litigations, Suffolk and its attorneys could not adequately represent the interests of the class. See 710 F.Supp. 1405 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). Suffolk's claims were severed from those of the class for the purposes of the impending After an extensive jury trial, Suffolk obt......
  • County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 28, 1998
    ...See, e.g., County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 685 F.Supp. 38 (E.D.N.Y.1988); 710 F.Supp. 1387 (E.D.N.Y.1989), 710 F.Supp. 1405 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 710 F.Supp. 1407 (E.D.N.Y.1989), 710 F.Supp. 1422 (E.D.N.Y.1989), 710 F.Supp. 1428 (E.D.N.Y.1989), 710 F.Supp. 1477 (E.D.N.Y.1989), 710......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT