Class Certification Denied In Case Involving Alleged Exposure To Refinery Leaks

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied a motion for class certification for all individuals living within a certain geographic area of a Louisiana refinery from June 2012 to the present.  The plaintiffs attempted to certify the class alleging that the refinery’s failure to meet regulatory standards resulted in more than 145 leaks and specific incidents involving a naptha leak in June 2012, a hydrochloric acid release in November 2012, and a sulfur dioxide leak in May 2012, all of which lead to injuries of proposed class members living near the refinery.

In assessing the motion for class certification, the court determined that the plaintiffs satisfied the four requirements for certification of Rule 23(a) — the proposed class was sufficiently numerous, it involved common questions of law and fact, the claims of the representatives were typical of those of the class, and the class representatives would adequately represent the interests of the class.  The court, however, concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23(b), specifically that the common issues of law and fact do not predominate over other questions.

The court explained its ruling, “There are at least three major events, along with numerous other, smaller events, and the questions of which class members were present, where within the proposed class area they were present, and for how long they were present would differ among the members of the class, and these questions would affect degree and nature of exposure.  Other divergent questions exist as well, such as the role that certain habits, including smoking, have on some of the symptoms that the class members experienced.”