Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Systems Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-8018.,02-8018. |
| Citation | 319 F.3d 910 |
| Parties | Theresa MEJDRECH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MET-COIL SYSTEMS CORP., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael A. Pollard (submitted), Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Shawn M. Collins (submitted), Naperville, IL, for respondents.
Before POSNER, COFFEY, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
The defendant seeks permission to appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) from the grant of class certification. We grant permission in order to determine the appropriateness of class action treatment in pollution cases, a matter on which the case law is sparse and divided, compare Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir.1988); Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 181 F.R.D. 473, 480-82 (D.Colo.1998), and Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 845 F.Supp. 705, 713 (D.Ariz. 1993), with Church v. General Electric Co., 138 F.Supp.2d 169, 181-82 (D.Mass.2001), and Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., Inc., 846 F.Supp. 1400, 1403-05 (W.D.Mo.1994), although the only appellate case (Sterling) permits such treatment and the district court cases that reject it (Church and Thomas) do so without extended discussion. This court has not spoken to the issue.
The defendant, Met-Coil, owns a factory in Lisle, a town outside Chicago. The homes of the approximately 1,000 members of the plaintiff class are within a mile or two of the factory. The complaint alleges that a storage tank on Met-Coil's property has leaked a noxious solvent, TCE, that has seeped into the soil and groundwater beneath the class members' homes, impairing the value of their property. The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief under federal and Illinois environmental law. Mindful that not only the amount but the fact of damage might vary from class member to class member, the district judge limited class treatment to what he described as "the core questions, i.e., whether or not and to what extent [Met-Coil] caused contamination of the area in question." Whether a particular class member suffered any legally compensable harm and if so in what dollar amount are questions that the judge reserved for individual hearings if and when Met-Coil is determined to have contaminated the soil and water under the class members' homes in violation of federal or state law.
We think the district judge's determination was reasonable, indeed right. Rather than parse the subdivisions of Rule 23 as the district judge (appropriately) did, we merely point out that class action treatment is appropriate and is permitted by Rule 23 when the judicial economy from consolidation of separate claims outweighs any concern with possible inaccuracies from their being lumped together in a single proceeding for decision by a single judge or jury. Often, and as it seems to us here, these competing considerations can be reconciled in a "mass tort" case by carving at the joints of the parties' dispute. If there are genuinely common issues, issues identical across all the claimants, issues moreover the accuracy of the resolution of which is unlikely to be enhanced by repeated proceedings, then it makes good sense, especially when the class is large, to resolve those issues in one fell swoop while leaving the remaining, claimant-specific issues to individual follow-on proceedings. Hardy v. City Optical Inc., 39 F.3d 765, 771 (7th Cir.1994); In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124, 1133-35 (9th Cir.2002); Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., supra, 855 F.2d at 1200; Weiss v. York Hospital, 745 F.2d 786, 809 (3d Cir.1984); 3 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 17.10 (3d ed. 1992). The questions whether Met-Coil leaked TCE in violation of law and whether the TCE reached the soil and groundwater beneath the homes of the class members are common to all the class members. The first question is particularly straightforward, but the second only slightly less so. The class members'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...be enhanced by repeated proceedings.’ ” McReynolds, 672 F.3d at 491. As the Seventh Circuit previously said in Mejdrech v. Met–Coil Systems Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.2003), If there are genuinely common issues, issues identical across all the claimants, issues moreover the accuracy of th......
-
Henry v. Dow Chemical Co.
...Life Assurance Co., 429 Mich. 410, 417, 418, 419, 415 N.W.2d 206 (1987), and the more recent case of Mejdrech, et al v. Met-Coil Sys. Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (C.A.7, 2003). This Court finds that there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class that predominate over question......
-
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010
...individually in a bifurcated proceeding, if necessary." Id. at 607. Other authorities are in accord. See, e.g., Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Sys. Corp., 319 F.3d 910, 911 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming certification of class alleging that defendant discharged TCE into soil and groundwater where distric......
-
Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...to be enhanced by repeatedproceedings.' " McReynolds, 672 F.3d at 491. As the Seventh Circuit previously said in Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Systems Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003), If there are genuinely common issues, issues identical across all the claimants, issues moreover the accuracy of......
-
Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
...litigation context.82 Applied to climate change litigation, preliminary class-wide resolution of the causal issue would efectuate com- 79. 319 F.3d 910, 911, 33 ELR 20152 (7th Cir. 2003). 80. Id . 81. 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012). 82. Martin v. Behr Dayton hermal Prods. LLC, 896 F.3d 405 (6......
-
Class Actions in the Year 2026: a Prognosis
...v. Household Int'l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding class certification in RICO case); Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Sys. Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003) (upholding class certification in pollution case on issue of whether defendant caused the contamination at issue); In re Rhone-P......
-
AGGREGATION: AN ESSENTIAL TOOL IN ACHIEVING IMPERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT, PROTECTION, AND JUSTICE.
...(62) KLONOFF, supra note 28, at 298. (63) Id. (64) Id. at 299. (65) Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Sys. Corp. (Met-Coil), 319 F.3d 910, 910-11 (7th Cir. (66) See KLONOFF, supra note 28, at 301 (discussing how Met-Coil acknowledges that class certification is proper for answering common questions befo......