In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liab., No. MDL 1358(SAS).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | Scheindlin |
| Citation | 379 F.Supp.2d 348 |
| Parties | In re: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to: Columbia Board of Education v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., American Distilling and Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of East Hampton v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., United Water Connecticut, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., Escambia County Utilities Authority v. Amerada Hess Corp., Village of Island Lake v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Rockport v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Mishawaka v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of South Bend v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., North Newton School Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Campbellsburg v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Galva, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Park City v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Dodge City v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Chisholm Creek Utility Authority v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Bel Aire v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Marksville v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Town of Rayville v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Town of Duxbury, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Dover v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Portsmouth v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., New Jersey American Water Co., Inc., et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Basso, et al. v. Sunoco, Inc., et al., Carle Place Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., City of New York v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., County of Nassau v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., County of Suffolk, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Franklin Square Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Hicksville Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Incorporated Village of Mineola, et al. v. Agip, Inc., et al., Incorporated Village of Sands Point v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Long Island Water Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Port Washington Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Roslyn Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Tonneson, et al., v. Exxon Mobile Corp., et al., Town of East Hampton v. Agip, Inc., et al., Town of Southampton v. Agip, Inc., et al., Town of Wappinger v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., United Water New York, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Village of Hempstead v. Agip, Inc., et al., Village of Pawling v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Water Authority of Great Neck North v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Water Authority of Western Naussau County v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., West Hempstead Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., Westbury Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Craftsbury Fire District #2 v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Hartland v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Buchanan County School Board v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Patrick County School Board v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Matoaka v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., |
| Decision Date | 20 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03 Civ.10053.,No. 04 Civ.2388.,No. 03 Civ.8248.,No. 03 Civ.9544.,No. 03 Civ.10057.,No. 03 Civ.10052.,No. 04 Civ.6993.,No. MDL 1358(SAS).,No. 04 Civ.3419.,No. 04 Civ.2070.,No. 04 Civ.3415.,No. 03 Civ.10056.,No. 03 Civ.9050.,No. 04 Civ.1724.,No. 04 Civ.1718-1722.,No. 03 Civ.10054.,No. 04 Civ.1725.,No. 04 Civ.1727.,No. 04 Civ.3416.,No. 04 Civ.5422.,No. 04 Civ.5424.,No. M21-88.,No. 04 Civ.5423.,No. 04 Civ.2389.,No. 04 Civ.3418.,No. 03 Civ.10055.,No. 04 Civ.2053.,No. 04 Civ.2390.,No. 04 Civ.1723.,No. 04 Civ.2072.,No. 04 Civ.3412.,No. 04 Civ.3420.,No. 04 Civ.2067.,No. 04 Civ.3417.,No. 04 Civ.5421.,No. 03 Civ.10051.,No. 04 Civ.1726.,No. 04 Civ.3413.,No. 04 Civ.2068.,No. 04 Civ.2055-2057.,No. 04 Civ.2059-2062.,No. 04 Civ.4990.,No. 04 Civ.1716.,No. 04 Civ.2066.,No. 03 Civ.9543. |
This document relates to:
Columbia Board of Education
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
American Distilling and Manufacturing Co., Inc.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Town of East Hampton
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
United Water Connecticut, Inc.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp.,
Escambia County Utilities Authority
v.
Amerada Hess Corp.,
Village of Island Lake
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Rockport
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Mishawaka
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of South Bend
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
North Newton School Corp.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Town of Campbellsburg
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Galva, et al.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Park City
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
City of Dodge City
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
Chisholm Creek Utility Authority
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
City of Bel Aire
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
City of Marksville
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
Town of Rayville
v.
Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al.,
Town of Duxbury, et al.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Dover
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
City of Portsmouth
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
New Jersey American Water Co., Inc., et al.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Basso, et al.
v.
Sunoco, Inc., et al.,
Carle Place Water District
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
City of New York
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
County of Nassau
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
County of Suffolk, et al.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Franklin Square Water District
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Hicksville Water District
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Incorporated Village of Mineola, et al.
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Incorporated Village of Sands Point
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Long Island Water Corp.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Port Washington Water District
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Roslyn Water District
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Tonneson, et al.,
v.
Exxon Mobile Corp., et al.,
Town of East Hampton
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Town of Southampton
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Town of Wappinger
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
United Water New York, Inc.
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Village of Hempstead
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Village of Pawling
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Water Authority of Great Neck North
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Water Authority of Western Naussau County
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
West Hempstead Water District
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Westbury Water District
v.
Agip, Inc., et al.,
Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Craftsbury Fire District #2
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Town of Hartland
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Buchanan County School Board
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Patrick County School Board
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Town of Matoaka
v.
Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,
Page 349
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 350
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 351
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 352
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 353
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 354
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 355
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 356
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 357
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 358
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 359
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 360
Robert Gordon, Stanley N. Alpert, C. Sanders McNew, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Peter John Sacripanti, James A. Pardo, Stephen J. Riccardulli, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................361
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................364
III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................367
A. Rule 12(b)(6) .....................................................367
B. Rule 8 ............................................................367
C. Rule 9(b) .........................................................368
D. Prediction of State Law ...........................................369
IV. THEORIES OF COLLECTIVE LIABILITY ......................................370
A. Concurrent Wrongdoing .............................................371
B. Concert of Action Liability .......................................372
C. Alternative Liability .............................................373
D. Enterprise Liability ..............................................373
E. Market Share Liability ............................................374
F. "Commingled Product" Market Share Liability .......................377
V. CONNECTICUT ...........................................................379
A. Collective Liability ..............................................379
B. Connecticut Products Liability Act ................................383
C. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ............................385
D. Fraud .............................................................386
VI. FLORIDA ...............................................................388
A. Collective Liability ..............................................388
B. Trespass ..........................................................389
C. Civil Conspiracy ..................................................390
VII. ILLINOIS ..............................................................391
A. Collective Liability ..............................................391
B. Illinois Water Pollutant Discharge Act ............................393
VIII. INDIANA ...............................................................394
A. Collective Liability ..............................................394
B. Indiana Environmental Legal Action ................................397
C. Downstream Handlers ...............................................397
IX. IOWA ..................................................................398
A. Collective Liability ..............................................398
B. Trespass ..........................................................400
C. Fraud .............................................................401
X. KANSAS ................................................................402
Page 361
A. Collective Liability ..............................................403
XI. LOUISIANA .............................................................405
A. Collective Liability ..............................................405
B. Louisiana Products Liability Act ..................................408
XII. MASSACHUSETTS .........................................................409
A. Collective Liability ..............................................409
B. Trespass ..........................................................411
C. Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and
Response Act .....................................................412
XIII. NEW HAMPSHIRE .........................................................413
A. Collective Liability ..............................................413
B. Nuisance ..........................................................416
C. Trespass ..........................................................417
D. Oil Discharge Statute .............................................418
E. New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act .............................419
XIV. NEW JERSEY ............................................................420
A. Collective Liability ..............................................420
B. Private Nuisance ..................................................422
C. New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act .....................423
XV. NEW YORK ..............................................................424
A. Collective Liability ..............................................425
B. Trespass ..........................................................426
C. New York Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Compensation Act ......427
D. Negligence Per Se .................................................429
E. Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................429
XVI. PENNSYLVANIA ..........................................................433
A. Collective Liability ..............................................433
B. Trespass ..........................................................437
XVII. VERMONT, VIRGINIA, and WEST VIRGINIA ..................................438
A. Collective Liability ..............................................439
B. Trespass ..........................................................440
XVIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................441
I. INTRODUCTION
In this consolidated multi-district litigation, plaintiffs seek relief from defendants' alleged contamination, or threatened contamination, of groundwater with the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"). The parties have already engaged in extensive motion practice, and familiarity with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
79 practice notes
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
...of our own Court. See In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 175 F.Supp.2d 593 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ( MTBE I ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ( MTBE II ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 457 F.Supp.2d 324 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ( MTBE III ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 458......
-
Dallio v. Hebert, No. 9:06-CV-0118 (GTS/GHL).
...of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a legally insufficient claim ......
-
Schwartzco Enters. LLC v. TMH Mgmt., LLC, No. 14–CV–1082 ADSGRB.
...precludes only those ‘types of [acts] therein particularized.’ ” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 419 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citation omitted). “In other words, a plaintiff's claim must fall within the [fourteen] enumerated categories in order to b......
-
Burns v. Trombly, Civil Action No. 9:05-cv-1204 (GLS/GHL).
...of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a legally insufficient claim ......
Request a trial to view additional results
76 cases
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., Docket Nos. 10–4135–cv, 10–4329–cv.
...of our own Court. See In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 175 F.Supp.2d 593 (S.D.N.Y.2001) ( MTBE I ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ( MTBE II ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 457 F.Supp.2d 324 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ( MTBE III ); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 458......
-
Dallio v. Hebert, No. 9:06-CV-0118 (GTS/GHL).
...of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a legally insufficient claim ......
-
Schwartzco Enters. LLC v. TMH Mgmt., LLC, No. 14–CV–1082 ADSGRB.
...precludes only those ‘types of [acts] therein particularized.’ ” In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 419 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citation omitted). “In other words, a plaintiff's claim must fall within the [fourteen] enumerated categories in order to b......
-
Burns v. Trombly, Civil Action No. 9:05-cv-1204 (GLS/GHL).
...of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a legally insufficient claim ......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
...54 In essence, over the last 30 years, while legal 51. Id . at 14, tbl. 1. 52. Id . 53. See, e.g ., In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (consolidated cases naming over 100 defendants alleged to have polluted groundwater). 54. See Praveen Amar, Nescaum, Enviro......
-
The Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives
...oxygen content. his oxygen content requirement applies during the portion 227. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prod. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2005). 228. In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:00CV01898, M21-88, MDL1358(SAS), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12400 (S.D.N.Y......
-
From Responsibility to Cost-Effectiveness to Litigation: The Evolution of Climate Change Regulation and the Emergence of Climate Justice Litigation
...use statistical, epidemiological and sociological evidence to prove its case”); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (recognizing the comingled product theory); Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 11 W.W.R. 201 (Supreme Court of C......