In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ju ly 1 1 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 3 G1 7 2 3 . GEORGIA-P ACIF IC CONS UMER P RODUCTS

, LP

v . RATNER e t a l.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Th e n a m e d p l a i n tiffs in th is c la ss a c tio n o wn re a l p ro p e rty in Ma lla rd

P o in te

, a re sid e n tia l n e ig h b o rh o o d in Effin g ha m Co u n ty

. Ne arb y , sin c e 1 9 8 6

,

Ge o rg ia -P a c ific Co n su m e r P ro d u c ts, LP ha s o p e ra te d th e S a v a n n a h Riv e r Mill,

a f a cility th a t in c lu d e s m o re th a n a h u n d re d a c re s o f slu dg e fie ld s, in to wh ic h

Ge o rg ia -P a c ific p u ts th e so lid wa ste g e n e ra te d a t th e Mill. A s t h is so lid wa ste

d e c o m po se s, th e p la in tiffs sa y , h y d ro g e n su lfid e g a s is re le a se d fro m th e slu d g e

fie ld s. Alle g in g th a t th e ir re a l p ro p e rty h a s b e e n c o n ta m in a te d b y th is g a s — a n d

th a t, a s a re su lt, th e y h a v e b e e n e x p o se d to no xio u s o d o rs, th e ir u se a n d

e n jo y m e n t o f th e ir p ro pe rty h a s b e e n im p a ire d, an d th e v a lu e o f th e ir p ro p e rty

h a s d im in ish e d
— th e p la in tiffs su e d Ge o rg ia -P a c ific fo r n u isa n c e , tre sp a ss, a n d

n e g lig e n c e

. Th e p la in tiffs s o u g h t n o t o n ly to re c o v e r m on e ta ry d a m a g e s fo rth e m se lv e s, b u t th e y p ro p o se d to se e k re lie f fo r a c la ss o f o th e r n e a rb y p ro p e rty

o wn e rs.

Th e tria l c ou rt p e rm itte d th e m to d o so , c e rtify in g a c la ss th a t c o n sists o f

th e o wn e rs o f 6 7 p a rc e ls o f re a l p ro p e rt y i n an d aro u n d Ma lla rd P o in te

. 1

1 Generally speaking, these 67 properties are in a contiguous area to the west of Fort
Howard Road. The Mill is situated just to the east of Fort Howard Road. Of the properties
in t he class area, t he l ots in M allard Pointe
— a neighb orhood that is located just of f Fort
Howard Road — and a f

ew other properties on Fort Howard Road appear to be the closest
in proxim ity to the s ludge f ields at the Mill. To be exact, the trial court def ined the class as f ollows:
All citizens of the State of Georgia w h o, as of Novem ber 1 8

, 2 0 1 0

, owned
property ly ing, in whole or in p art, within an area of land ly ing in Ef

f ingham County

, Georgia, and bounded as f ollows:
On t he east by a line running along the west side o f the right of

way of Fort Howard Road between t h e intersection of Fort
Howard Road and Secki n g e r F o rd R oad and the s o uth side of
the right of way of the r ailroad line that s e r v e s t h e GeorgiaPacif ic plant;
O n the north by a line running along the south side o f s a i d
railroad right o f way between For[ t] H oward Road and RinconStillwell Road;
On t he west b y a line running along the east side of the right of

way of Rincon-Stillwell Road; [ and]
On the south by a line running along the north side of the right
of way of B uny an Kessler Road beginning at Rincon-Stillwell
Road and going in an easterly directly to a point at L a t itude
32.3 0 582649 and Longitude m inus 81.21047668 a n d thence easterly along a straight line to the i ntersection o f Fort Howard Road and Seckinger Ford Road. Expressly excluded f

rom me m bership in the class are [ Georgia-Pacif ic], its

r e l ated corporations and all directors, of f icers and em

ploy ees of [ G eorg i a

Pacif ic].
This class def

inition identif

ies the m em

bers of the class with enough precision.

2Ge o rg ia -P a c ific a pp e a le d th e c e rtific a tio n o f th e c la ss, 2 an d th e C o u rt of Ap p e a ls

a ffirm e d, G e o rg ia -P a c ific Co n su m e r P ro d u c ts, L P v

. Ra tn e r, 3 2 3 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 0 3

,

2 0 3 -2 1 2 (7 4 6 S E2 d 8 2 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ), a lth o u g h th re e o f its ju d g e s disse n te d

. S e e id

.

a t 2 1 3 -2 2 1 (Bra n c h

, J., disse n tin g ). Up o n th e p e titio n of Ge o rg ia -P a c ific

, we

i ssu e d a writ o f c e rtio ra ri to re v ie w th e d e c isio n o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls. W e

c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt a bu se d its d isc re tio n wh e n it c e rtifie d th e c la ss, a n d

we re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls.

1

. “ Th e c la ss a c ti o n i s a n e x c e p tio n to th e usu a l ru le th a t litig a tio n is

c o n d u c te d b y a n d o n b e h a l f o f th e in d iv id u a l n a m e d pa rtie s on ly ,” Co m c a st

Co rp

. v

. Be h re n d,

_

_ _ U. S

.

_ _ _ ,

_ _ _ (II) (1 3 3 S C t 1 42 6, 1 8 5 L E2 d 5 1 5 )

((2 01 3 ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ), a n d c o nsiste n t with its e x c e p tio n a l

n a tu re , a c la ss a c tio n is p e rm itte d o n ly in th e lim ite d c irc u m sta n c e s d e sc rib e d in

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 3

. 3 Th e p a rty se e k in g to re p re se n t a c la ss “b e ar[s] th e b u rd e n o f

2 See OCGA § 9-11-23 (g) (“A court’s order certif y ing a class or ref

using to certif

y a class shall be appealable in the sam e m anner as a f inal order to the appellate court which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the appeal f r om a f inal order in the action.”).

3 Many provisions of OCGA § 9-11-23 were borrowed f rom Federal R u l e of Civil
Procedure 23, and f

or this r eason, w hen G eorgia courts interpret and apply OCGA § 9-11-23, they com m only look to decisions of the f ederal courts interpreting and apply i ng Rule 23. See,

e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry

, 274 Ga. 498, 499 (1) (556 S E2d 114) (2001);
Rite Aid of G a. v. Peacock, 315 Ga. App. 573, 574 (1) (726 SE2d 577) (2012); B renntag Mid South, Inc. v

. Sm art, 3 08 Ga. App. 899, 903 ( 2) ( 710 SE2d 569) (2011); Fuller v. Heartwood

3p ro v in g th a t c la ss c e rtific a tio n is a p p ro p ria te .” Ca rn e tt’s, In c

. v

. Ha m m o n d

, 2 7 9

Ga

. 1 2 5

, 1 2 7 (3 ) (6 1 0 S E2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). S e e a lso Mc Ga rry

v . Cin g u la r Wire le ss, LLC, 2 6 7 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 3

, 2 5 (1 ) (5 9 9 S E2 d 3 4 ) (2 0 0 4 ). In

th is c a se , to pe rm it th e c e rtific a tio n o f a c la ss o f pla in tiffs, th e n a m e d p la in tiffs

h a d to sa tisfy e a c h o f th e fo u r re q u ire m e n ts d e sc rib e d in OCGA § 9-1 1 -2 3 (a )

— n u m e ro sity

, 4 c o m m o n a lity

, 5 ty p ic a lity

, 6 a n d a d e q u a c y o f re p re se n ta tio n 7

—

a s we ll a s th e p re d o m in a n c e r e q u i r e me n t of O CGA § 9 -1 1 -2 3 (b ) (3 ). 8 S e e

Am e ric an De b t F o u nd a tio n v

. Ho d z ic

, 3 1 2 Ga

. A p p

. 8 0 6

, 80 8 (7 2 0 SE2 d 2 8 3 )

11, LLC, 301 Ga. App. 309, 312 (687 SE2d 2 87) (2009); Gay v. B.H. Transf er Co., 287 Ga. App. 610, 611, n.2 (652 SE2d 200) (2007).

4 OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (1) (“The class is so num erous that joinder of all m em bers is
im p racticable[ .]”).

5 OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (2) (“There a r e questions of l aw or f act com m o n t o the class[ .]”).

6 OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (3) (“The claim s

. . . of the representative parties are ty pical of
the claim s . . . of

the class[ .]”).

7 OC G A § 9

- 11-23 (a) (4) (“The representative p arties will f airly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”).

8 OCGA § 9-11-23 (b) (3) (“[ T]he questions of law or f act com m o n to the m em

bers
of the class predo mi n a t e over any questions af f ecting only individual m em bers, and

. . . a class action is superior to other available m ethods f or the f air and ef f icient adjudication of
the controversy .”). F or a class action to proceed, all the requirem ent s o f O C G A § 9-11-23 (a) m ust b e satisf

i ed, as well as o ne of the three r equirem e nts described in OCGA § 9-11-23 (b). Here, the plaintif

f s have relied exclusively upon OCGA § 9-11-23 (b) (3), and t hat is the only p a ragraph of

subsection (b), theref

ore, with which we are concerned.

4(2 0 1 1 ). To sa tisfy th e se re q u ire m e n ts, it wa s n o t e n ou gh fo r th e p la in tiffs sim p ly

to h a v e a lle g e d th a t th e y w e re sa tisfie d

. Wa l-Ma rt S to re s, In c

. v

. Du k e s ,

_ _ _

U. S

.

_ _ _ ,

_ _ _ (II) (A) (1 3 1 S Ct 2 5 4 1

, 1 80 LE2 d 3 7 4 ) (2 01 1). S e e a lso F o rtis

In s. Co

. v

. Ka h n , 2 9 9 G a

. Ap p

. 3 1 9

, 3 2 1 -3 2 2 (1 ) (6 8 3 SE2 d 4) (2 0 0 9 ). Ra th e r,

th e p la in tiffs ha d to c o m e fo rwa rd with e vid e n c e t o p ro ve th e ir sa tisfa c tio n o f

th e sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts. S e e Du k e s,

__ _ U

. S

. a t

_

_ _ (II) (A). S e e a lso Jo ne s

v

. Do ug la s Co u n ty

, 2 62 G a

. 3 1 7

, 3 2 4 (2 ) (4 1 8 S E2 d 1 9 ) (1 9 9 2 ); Rite Aid o f Ga

.

v . P e a c o c k , 3 1 5 Ga . Ap p . 5 7 3 , 5 7 4 -5 75 (1 ) (7 26 S E2 d 5 7 7) (2 0 1 2 ).

Wh e th e r to c e rtify a c l as s i s a m a tte r c o m m itte d to th e d isc re tio n o f th e

tria l c o u rt, S ta te Fa rm Mu t. Au to

. In s. Co

. v. Ma bry

, 2 7 4 Ga

. 4 98

, 4 99 -5 0 0 (1 )

(5 5 6 SE2 d 1 1 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ), b u t a n y e x e rc ise o f th a t d isc re tio n m u st c o m po rt with

th e sta tu to ry re qu ire m e n ts. Mo re o v e r, th e c e rtific a tio n o f a c la ss is a p p ro p ria te

o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t “ th e tria l c o u rt is sa tisfie d

, a fte r a rig o ro u s a n a ly sis, th a t

[th e sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts] h a v e b e e n sa tisfie d .” Ge n

. Te l. Co

. of th e So u th we st

v

. F a lc o n , 4 5 7 U. S

. 1 4 7

, 1 6 1 (III ) ( 1 0 2 S C t 2 3 6 4

, 7 2 LE2 d 7 4 0) (1 9 8 2 ). S e e

a lso Rite Aid

, 3 1 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 5 7 4 -5 7 5 (1 ); Ka h n , 2 9 9 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 3 2 1 (1 ). A s

a p a rt of th is rig o ro u s a n a ly sis, “ so m e tim e s it m a y b e n e c e ssa ry fo r th e c o u rt to

p ro b e b e h in d th e p le a d in g s b e fo re c o m in g to re st on th e c e rtific a tio n q u e stio n .”

5F a lc o n , 4 5 7 U

. S

. a t 1 6 0 (II). In d e e d

, a s th e Un ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt ha s

e x p la in e d

,

F re q u e n tly th a t rig o ro u s a n a ly sis will e n ta il so m e o v e rla p with th e

m e rits o f th e p la in tiff’s u n d e rly in g c la im

. T h a t c a n n o t be h e lp e d

. Th e c la ss d e te rm in a tio n g e n e ra lly in v o lv e s c on sid e ra tio n s th a t a re

e n m e sh e d in th e fa c tu a l a n d le g a l issu e s c o m p risin g th e p la in tiff’s

c a u se of a c tio n

.

Du k e s,

_ _ _ U. S

. a t

_

_ _ (II) (A) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). S e e a lso

Rite Aid , 3 1 5 Ga . Ap p . a t 5 7 5 (1 ); Mc G a rry , 2 67 Ga . Ap p . a t 2 5 (1 ).

U p o n ou r re vie w o f th e re c o rd

, we c o nc lu d e th a t th e p la in tiffs f a i l e d t o

c o m e fo rwa rd with e v id e nc e su ffic ie n t to sh o w th e c o m m o n a lity o f t h e

p a rtic u la r c la s s t h a t wa s c e rtifie d

. Ge o rg ia -P a c ific ra ise s so m e fa ir q u e stio n s

a b o u t ty pic a lity a n d p re d o m in a n c e a s we ll, 9 b u t we d o n ot h a ve to re a c h th ose

q u e stio n s to d a

y

. Be c a use c o m m o n a lity is la c k in g , th e t r i a l co u rt a b u se d its

d isc re tio n wh e n it c e rtifie d th e c la ss, a n d th e Co u rt of A p p e a l s s h o u ld h a v e

re v e rse d th e c e rtific a tio n

.

9 Georgia-Pacif

ic does not d ispute t hat the certif ied class is suf

f iciently n um erous, see OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (1), and aside f rom the question of t y

picality

, they appear not to dispute
that the nam ed plaintif

f s are adequate representatives of the class. See OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (4). S ee also Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School Dist., 6 90 F2d 470, 485, n.27 (IV) (5 t h Cir. 1982) (“The requirem ents [ of ty picality a n d adequacy ] are closely related, f or dem anding ty

picality on the part of the representative helps ensure his adequacy a s a representative.”).

62

. To sh o w c om m o n a lity

, th e pla in tiffs h a d t o d e m o n stra te th a t “ [t] he re

a re q u e stio n s o f la w o r fa c t c o m m o n to th e c la ss,” O CGA § 9 -1 1 -2 3 (a ) (2 ), b u t

a s th e Un ite d S ta te s S u p re m e Co u rt re c e n tly e xp la in e d in Du k e s , “ [ t ] h a t

la n g ua g e is e a sy to m isre a d

, sin c e a n y c om p e te n tly c ra f

t e d c la ss c om

p la in t

lite ra lly ra ise s c o mmo n q u e s tio n s.”

__ _ U. S

. a t

_

_ _ (II) (A) (c ita tio n a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). Ev e ry p u ta tiv e c la ss a c tio n p re se n ts q u e stio n s th a t a re , in

a se n se , “ c o m m o n ” to th e c la ss. Bu t fo r c om m o n a lity u n d e r OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 3

(a ) (2 ), n o t ju st a n y “ c o m m on ” q ue stio ns will d o

. Co m m o n a lity d e p e n d s o n th e

p re se nc e o f a pa rtic u la r so rt o f “ c o m m o n ” q u e stio n , a nd sim p ly re c itin g a list o f

q u e stio n s th a t a re “ c o m m on ” in a n o th e r se n se c o n trib u te s n o t h i n g t o th e

c o m m o na lity in q u iry

. 1 0 Du k e s, _

_ _ U. S . a t _

_ _ (II) (A).

10 The t r ial court — and the m ajority of the Court of A ppeals
— appear to have f allen
into the very analy

tical trap against which the United States Suprem e Court warned in Dukes.

In its order certif

y ing t he class, the trial c ourt recited a list of “com m on” questi o n s t hat, although “com m on” in a sense, do not show the sort of com m onality required f or OCGA §
9-11-23 (a) (2). F or i nstance, t he trial court noted that the case involves “ com m on” questions concerning:

• The m aterials used b y Georgia-Pacif ic at the Mill, including the way s in which those m aterials are stored and used;

• The m anner in which Georgia-Pacif ic operates the Mill, including its sludge f ields;

• The reasons f

or r eleases of hy drogen sulf ide gas f rom the sludge f

ields;

• The potential ef

f ects of a release of hy drogen sulf ide gas, i ncluding the toxic and corrosive properties of the gas;

• The nature and adequacy of p r e c a u t i ons taken by Georgia-Pacif i c to

7To e sta blish th e so rt o f c o m m o n a lity t h a t OCGA § 9 -1 1 -2 3 (a ) (2 )

re q u ire s, th e pla in tiffs w e re re q u ire d t o s h o w “th a t th e c la ss m e m b e rs h a v e

su ffe re d th e sa m e in

ju ry .” 1 1 Du k e s,

__

_ U. S

. a t

_

_ _ (II) (A) (c ita tio n a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d). S e e a lso Rite Aid

, 3 15 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 5 7 5 (1 ) (a ). To d o so ,

th e p la in tiffs h a d to p o in t to a “ c o m m o n c o nte n tio n ” th a t e a c h m e m be r o f th e

c la ss h a d su ffe re d th e sa m e in sta n c e o r c o u rse o f wro n g fu l c o n du c t, se e Du k e s,

_ _ _ U

. S

. a t

_

_ _ (II) (A), an d th e p la in tiffs a lso h a d to sh ow th a t th is “ c o m m o n

c o n te n tio n ” “ i s c a

p a ble of c la sswid e re so lu tio n — wh ic h m e a n s th a t

d e te rm in a tio n o f its tru th o r fa lsity will re so lv e a n issu e th a t is c e ntra l to th e

prevent the release of

hy drogen sulf

ide gas;

• The “liability

of Georgia-Pacif

i c”;

• The “com m on af

f irm ative def

enses raised by

Georgia-Pacif

ic”; and

• The rem edies a vailable to m e m bers of the clas s , i n c l uding the appropriate m easure of dam ages, e xem plary dam ages, and expenses of litigation.
The m ajority in the Court o f Appeals recited a s i m i lar list of “com m o n” questions. See Ratner, 323 Ga. App. at 208 (1) (b). No doubt, these q uestions m a y be “com m o n” in a sense, but they do not sho w t he com m onality that the statute r equires, and “ [ r ]eciting these questions is not s u f

f icient to [ w arrant] class certif ication.” D ukes,

___ U. S

. at

___ (II) (A).

11 To be c lear, w h e n i t r e f e r r ed in Dukes to the need t o dem onstrate “ that the class

m em bers have suf

f ered the sam e i njury ,” we do not understand the Suprem e Court to have

m eant that all the class m em bers m ust have sustained precisely the s am e dam ages. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 7 39 F3d 790, 810-811 (IV) (A) (5 t h Cir. 2014) (“[ T ]he l egal requirem ent that class m e m

bers have all ‘ suf

f e red t he sam e injury ’ can be satisf ied by an instance of the
def endant’s injurious conduct, even when the resulting injurious ef f ects — the d am ages

— are diverse.”).

8v a lid ity o f e a c h on e o f th e c la im s in o n e stro k e .” 12 I d

. “ W h a t ma tte rs to c la ss

c e rtific a tio n is n o t t h e r aisin g o f c o m m o n q u e stio n s — e v e n in d ro v e s — b u t,

ra th e r th e c a

p a c ity o f a c la sswid e p ro c e e d in g to g e n e ra te c o m m on a n swe rs a p t

to d riv e th e re so lu tio n o f th e litig a tio n .” Id . (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ;

e m p h a sis in orig in a l). Alth o u g h Du k e s m a k e s th e se p o in ts m o re c le a rly th a n o u r

o wn pre c e d e n ts, it is e n t i r e ly c o n siste n t with th ose p re c e d e n ts. S e e Ca rn e tt’s,

2 7 9 Ga

. a t 1 2 9 (4 ) (“ A c o m m o n q u e stio n is n o t e n o u g h wh e n th e a n swe r m a y

v a ry with e a c h c la s s me m b e r a n d is d e te rm in a tiv e o f wh e th e r th e m e m b e r is

p ro p e rly p a rt o f th e c la ss.” (Cita tio n o m itte d ; e m p h a sis in o rig in a l.)).

Th e p la in tiffs in th is c a se p o in te d to a “ c o m m o n c o nte n tio n ” t h a t m ig h t

p ro p e rly f

o r m th e b a sis fo r a fin d in g of c o m m o n a lity

, n a m e ly

, th a t th e ir

p ro p e rtie s we re c o n ta m in a te d with h y d ro g e n su lfid e g a s re le a se d fro m th e

slu dg e fie ld s a t th e Mill. B u t p o in tin g to a “ c o m m on c o n te n tio n ” is o n ly th e first

ste p

. Th e p la in tiffs a lso h a d to sh o w th a t th is “ c o m m o n c o n te n tio n ” is “ c a p a b le

12 At class certif

ication, plaintif

f s n eed not pr o ve the m erit of t heir “com m on contention”
— that is, they n eed n ot def initively prove t hat each and e v e r y m e mb e r of the
class d id, in f

act, suf f e r the “sam e injury .” But th e y h a v e t o show that their “com m on contention” is capable of being proved at once f or t he whole class. To do that, they have to point to som e evidence by which they could prove the m erit of their “com m on contention.”

9o f c la s s wid e re so lu tio n ” with re sp e c t to th e p a rtic u la r c la ss th a t th e tria l c o urt

c e rtifie d . An d th a t is wh e re th e y c a m e u p sh o rt.

We do no t fin d i n t h e re c o rd e v id e n c e b y wh ic h th e pla in tiffs m ig h t b e

a b le to p ro v e o n a cl as s w i de b a sis th a t th e e n tire a re a by wh ic h th e c la ss wa s

d e fin e d

, in fa c t, wa s c o n ta m in a te d with hy d ro g e n su lfid e g a s f r o m t h e slu d g e

fie ld s. Th e re is, fo r in sta n c e , n o sc ie n tific e v id e n c e o f th e a m o un ts o f ga s

re le a se d fro m th e slu d g e fie ld s, n o e v id e n c e o f th e ra te o f re le a se , n o e v id e n c e

o f th e e x te n t to wh ic h th e a m o u n ts re le a se d a n d ra te s o f re le a se v a rie d ov e r tim e ,

a n d n o e vid e n c e o f e x a c tly h o w th e g a s wo uld b e e x p e c te d to m o v e th ro u g h th e

a ir u p o n its re le a se

. As fo r th e d ire c tio n in wh ic h g a s wo u ld be e x p e c te d to

m o v e , th e o n ly e vid e n c e o f lo c a l win d p a tte rn s is th a t th e p re v a ilin g win d s o v e r

th e slu d g e fie ld s b lo w a wa y fro m th e c la ss a re a , a n d th e win d s blo w f r o m t h e

slu dg e fie ld s to w a rd s a n y sp e c ific lo c a tio n with in th e c la ss a re a o nly a bo u t fo u r

p e rc e nt o f th e tim e

. Th e re is n o e v id e nc e o f th e ra te a t wh ic h th e g a s wo u ld b e

e x p e c te d to d issip a te fo llo win g its re le a se , a n d th e re is n o e v id e nc e o f a ir q u a lity

sa m p lin g a c ro ss th e c la ss a re a a t a n y tim e

. 1 3

13 The dissent r elies on S m ith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., 2 014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
43172 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2014), and J ackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P3d 874 (Colo. 2011).

In each o f these cases, the c ourts were presented with scientif i c evidence t hat tended to show

1 0Th e re c o rd d o e s c o n ta in so m e a n e c d o ta l e v id e n c e o f h y d ro g e n su lfid e ga s

in so m e a re a s a ro un d th e Mill, bu t th i s a n e c d o ta l e vid e n c e is n o t e n o u g h to

sa tisfy a rig o ro u s a n a ly sis with re sp e c t to th e c o m m o n a lity o f th e p a rtic u la r c la ss

th a t th e tria l c o u rt c e rtifie d

. F irst, th e re is e v id e n c e of m u ltip le c o m

p l a i n ts to

Ge o rg ia -P a c ific a

bo u t th e c o rro sio n o f a ir-c o n d itio nin g u n its in th e v ic in ity o f

th e M ill. Bu t a s b e st w e c a n te ll fro m th e re c o rd

, a n u m b e r of th e se c o m

p la in ts

d id n o t e v e n o rig in a te with in th e a re a b y w h ic h th e c la ss wa s d e fin e d

, a n d th ose

th a t d id a p p e a r to h a v e orig in a te d in a ge o g ra p h ic a lly c o m

p a c t a n d r e l a tiv e ly

sm a ll p o rtio n o f th e c la ss a re a , a ll in Ma lla rd Po in te itse lf o r o th e rwise a lo n g th e

fa r e a ste rn e d g e of th e c la ss a re a , ju st a c ro ss Fo rt Ho wa rd R o a d fro m th e Mill. 1 4

Th e c la ss a re a stre tc h e s su b sta n tia lly to th e we st o f th e sm a ll a n d c o m p a c t a re a

fro m wh ic h th e se c om

p la in ts c a m e , a n d th e c o m p la in ts d o n o t, th e re fo re , te n d

the contam ination of the proposed class a rea. Sm ith, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43172, at *11-14 (IV) (A); Jackson, 262 P3d at 887-888 (IV) ( A). As Jackson notes, “[ u]sually , scientif ic or objective evidenc e closely ties the spread of the alleged p ollution or c o ntam ination to the proposed class b oundaries, a s m any m ass environm ental tort cases dem onstrate.” 262 P3d

at 8 87 (IV) (A) (citation and p unctuation om itted). But “where plaintif f s f a il to produce

e v idence linking t he proposed boundary to the environm ental hazard, courts have deni e d
certif i cation.” Sm ith, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43172, at *10 (IV) (A) (citations om itted).

14 There is evidence of com plaints that do not i n v o l ve the corrosion of air-conditioning units, but i t a

ppears that m ost of those com plaints did not originate within t he class area and
that those that did
— like the com plaints about air-conditioning units
— originated in or near Mallard Pointe.

1 1to sh o w th a t th e c la ss a re a a s a wh ole wa s c o n t a m in a te d b y h y d ro g e n su lfid e

g a s.

Th e re a lso is th e te stim o n y o f two a ir-c o nd itio n in g te c h n ic ia n s, b o th o f

wh o m te stifie d th a t th e y h a v e o b se rv e d c o rro sio n in a n um b e r o f a irc o n d itio n in g u n its in th e v ic in ity o f th e Mill, wh ic h wa s, th e y su rm ise d

, a re su lt

o f e x c e ssiv e h y d ro g e n su lfid e e x p o su re

. B u t a c c o rd in g to th e re c o rd

, to

d e te rm in e wh e th e r a n y p a rtic u la r c o rro sio n a c tu a lly wa s a re su lt o f h y d ro g e n

su lfid e e x po su re , it wo u ld b e n e c e ssa ry to te st th e c o rro d e d c o m p o n e n ts, a n d

n e ith e r o f th e te c h n ic ia n s h a s su b m itte d a n y pa rts fo r su c h te stin g

.

Co n se q u e n tly

, th e ir o p in io n th a t th e c o rro sio n is d u e to h y dro g e n su lfid e

e x p o su re se e m s to a m o u n t to n o th in g m ore th a n c o n je c tu re . An d in a n y e v e n t,

o n e o f th e te c hn ic ia n s te stifie d th a t th e c o rro sio n he o b se rv e d wa s n e a r th e Mill,

b u t no t with in th e c la ss a re a

. T h e o th e r te c h n ic ia n sa id th a t he sa w c o rro sio n in

a fe w a ir-c on d itio n in g un its with in th e c la ss a re a a n d o u tsid e Ma lla rd P oin te

, b u t

th e lo c a tio n s a t wh ic h he sa w c o rro sio n still w e re c lo se in pro x im ity
— re la tiv e

to th e c la ss a re a a s a wh o le

— t o M a l l a rd P o in te

. With o u t m o re , e v id e n c e o f

c o rro sio n a t th e se lo c a tio ns d o e s n o t te n d to sh o w a n y lik e lih o o d th a t th e c la ss

a re a a s a wh o le wa s c o n ta m in a te d

.

1 2Th e re a lso wa s e v id e n c e fro m th e na m e d p la in tiffs th e m se lv e s, wh o n o te d

th a t t h e y h a d be e n e x p o se d to no x io u s o d o rs a t th e ir h o m e s, wh ic h th e y

a ttrib u te d to h y d ro g e n su lfid e g a s

. Bu t a g a in

, th e n a m e d p la in tiffs liv e in

Ma lla rd Po in te

, wh ic h sits ju st a c ro ss th e ro a d fro m th e Mill itse lf. T h e id e a th a t

th e ir te stim o n y te n d s to sh o w th a t th e c la ss a re a a s a wh o le — wh ic h stre tc he s

fo r so m e d ista n c e to th e we st o f Ma lla rd P o in te — h a s b e e n e x po se d to h a rm fu l

h y d ro g e n su lfid e g a s is a du b io u s o n e

.

F ro m th e e v id e n c e o f re c o rd

, o n e fa irly c o u ld c o nc lu d e th a t a n u m b e r o f

p e o p le in th e v ic in ity o f th e Mill
— e sp e c ia lly th o se liv in g in Ma lla rd P o in te

—

h a v e e x p e rie n c e d p ro b le m s th a t m ig ht b e a ttrib u ta ble to th e a lle g e d r el e a se o f

h y d ro g e n su lfid e g a s fr om th e slu d g e fie ld s a t th e Mill. Bu t th e lo c a tio n s a t

wh i c h t h e se p e o p le h a v e e x p e rie n c e d su c h p ro b le m s (a s e v id e n c e d b y th e

re c o rd ) d o n o t se e m to c o in c id e with th e fu ll e x te n t o f th e c la ss a re a

. Wh e th e r

th e “ c o m m o n c o n te ntio n ” o f h a rm fu l e x p o su re c an b e p ro ve d o n a c la sswid e

b a sis is in d ou bt, a t le a st a s to th e c l a s s a s t h e tria l c o u rt d e fin e d it. As Ju d g e

Bra n c h a p tly sa id in h e r d isse n t:

[T] h e c la s s ap p e a

rs to h a ve b e e n d e fin e d n ot b y a n y lo g ic a l
d e te rm in a tio n o f th e a c t u a l e ffe c ts o f th e M ill’s n u m e ro us a n d
in te rm itte n t re le a se s o f h y d ro g e n su lfid e o n p e rso n s a n d p ro pe rty

1 3o v e r a p e rio d o f y e a rs, b u t ra th e r b y m e a n s o f a rb itra rily dra w n lin e s

o n a m a p

.

Ra tn e r, 3 2 3 Ga

. Ap p. a t 2 1 8 (Bra n c h

, J., d i s s en tin g ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n

o m itte d ). 1 5

No o n e sh ou ld m isu n d e rsta n d u s to sa y th a t c om m o n a lity n e v e r c a n b e

sh o wn in th e c o n te x t o f e n v iro n m e n ta l m a ss to rts, th a t it c a nn ot b e sh o wn in th is

c a se , or e v e n th a t it c a n n o t b e sh o wn in th is c a se a s to th e c la ss a s th e tria l c o urt

d e fin e d it. It c e rta in ly is c o n c e iv a b le th a t th e pla in tiffs m ig h t sh o w th e re q u isite

c o m m o na lity o f th a t c la ss o r a n o t h e r

. Cf. Bre n n ta g Mid So u th

, In c

. v. S m art,

3 0 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 8 9 9

, 9 0 2

, n.2 (2 ), 9 0 3 -9 0 4 (2 ) ( a) ( i i ) (7 1 0 S E2 d 56 9) (2 0 1 1 )

(p la in tiffs in c la ss a c tio n a s s e rtin g c la im s o f e n v iro n m e n ta l to rts sa tisfie d

c o m m o na lity re qu ire m e n t with p ro o f th a t e a c h c la ss m e m b e r a c tu a ll y wa s

15 The record b e ars out the idea that the class w as def ined “by m eans of arbitrarily
drawn lines on a m ap.” According to the testim ony of record, the a r ea by which the class was def ined w as identif

ied in signif

icant part by a real estate appraiser, who sim p ly drove around
in the vicinity of the Mill, looking f or “m ajor roads” and other “specif ic g eographi c a l
boundaries” that “seem ed reasonable” to bound the class area. W hen “it seem ed l ike we were getting too f

ar away f rom [ the Mill],” t he appraiser apparently would turn b ack a nd look f or

a c l oser boundary

. The a

ppraiser testif

ied that he went in search of the boundaries of the class

area w ithout any scientif ic analy sis of a i r quality or e x p e cted gas m ovem ents, without knowledge of local wind patterns, and without knowledge of other potential nearby sources of gases that m ight cause noxious odors. The a p praiser also did not rely u pon any appraisal

m ethodology in helping to select boundaries f or t he class area, adm i tting e xplicitly that “it’s
a seat of the pants kind of

thing.”

1 4e v a c u a te d a s a re su lt o f a c c id e n ta l re le a se o f a c id ic g a s, a nd c la ss wa s d e fin e d

in te r ms o f t h e lo c a tio n s c o v e re d b y “ e v a c u a tio n o rd e rs a s we ll a s e x p e rt

c o n su lta tio n a s to ‘th e a c tu a l g e o g ra p h ic a l e x te n t o f th e c h e m ic a l p lu m e a s it

sp re a d’” ). Bu t if th e p la in tiffs a re to sa tisfy th e c om m o n a lity re q u ire m e n t, th e y

h a v e so m e m o re wo rk to d o

. Th e c e rtific a tio n o f th e c la ss w a s an a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , a

n d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls sh o u ld h a ve re v e rse d it. Ac c o rd in g ly , we

re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls.

Ju d g m e n t re ve rse d

. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r, e x c e p t B e n h a m a n d Hu n ste in

,

JJ., wh o d isse n t.

1 5S 1 3 G1 7 2 3 . GEORGIA-P ACIF IC CONS UMER P RODUCTS

, LP

v . RATNER e t a l.

MELTON, Ju stic e , c on c u rrin g

.

Alth o u g h I c o n c u r fu lly in th e m a jo rity o pin io n , I write se p a ra te ly to p o in t

o u t th a t, fo r m a n y o f th e sa m e re a so n s disc u sse d with re g a rd t o c o m m o n a lity

,

c e rtific a tio n o f th e c l a s s i n th is c a se wo u ld b e in a pp ro p ria te d u e to a la c k o f

ty p ic a lity

. OCGA § 9 -1 1-2 3 p ro v id e s th a t “ (a ) On e o r m ore m e m b e rs o f a c la ss

m a y su e o r b e su e d a s re pre se n ta tiv e pa rtie s on b e ha lf o f a ll o n ly if:

. . . (3 ) Th e

c la im s or d e fe nse s o f th e re p re se n ta tiv e p a rtie s a r e ty pic a l o f th e c la im s o r

d e fe n se s o f th e c la ss.” Th e n a m e d pla in tiffs in th is c a se h a v e no t b e e n sh o wn to

b e ty p ic a l o f th e c la im s o r d e fe n se s o f th e p ro p o se d c la ss, a s its m e m b e rs o wn

d iffe re n t tra c ts of la n d su b je c te d to v a r y in g u se s (so m e re sid e n tia l, so m e

a g ric u ltu ra l, so m e c o m m e rc ia l a nd /o r in d u stria l, so m e v a c a nt an d u n u se d ) a n d

lo c a te d a t d iffe re n t d ista n c e s a n d d ire c tio n s fro m th e slu d g e fie ld s in q u e stio n

.

Th e re fo re , th e p u rp o rte d c la ss in th is in sta n c e fa ils fo r b o th la c k o f c o m m o n a lity

a n d ty p ic a lity

.S 1 3 G1 7 2 3 . GEORGIA-P ACIF IC CONS UMER P RODUCTS

, LP

v . RATNER e t a l.

HUNS T EIN, Ju stic e , d isse n tin g

.

I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d isse n t.

1

. Th e m a

j o r i t y ’ s a n a ly sis a ffo rd s in su ffic ie n t d e fe re nc e to th e tria l

c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n o n c la ss c e rtific a tio n in th is c a se

. As th is Co urt h a s n o te d

,

“ tria l ju d g e s h a v e b ro a d d isc re tio n in d e c i d i n g wh e th e r to c e rtify a c la ss.”

Ca rn e tt’s, In c

. v. Ha m m o n d

, 2 7 9 Ga

. 1 25

, 1 2 7 (3 ) (6 1 0 SE2 d 52 9 ) (2 0 0 5 ); se e

a l s o J o n e s v

. Do u g la s Co u n ty

, 2 6 2 Ga

. 3 1 7, (2 ) (4 1 8 SE2 d 1 9 ) (1 9 9 2 ) ( “ [ o ]n

a p p e lla te re v ie w

. . . ‘th e d isc re tio n o f th e tria l ju d g e in c e rtify in g o r re fu sin g to

c e rtify a c la ss a c tio n is to b e re sp e c te d in a ll c a se s w h e re n o t a b u se d ’” ).

“ ‘Im p lic it in th is de fe re ntia l sta n d a rd o f re v ie w i s a re c o gn itio n o f th e fa c tin te nsiv e b a sis of th e c e rtific a tio n in q u iry a n d o f th e tria l c o urt’s in h e re n t p o we r

to m a na g e a

n d c o n tro l pe n d in g litig a tio n

. ’ ” B re n nta g v

. Mid S o u th

, In c

. v

.

S m a rt, 3 0 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 8 99

, 9 0 2 (2 ) (7 1 0 S E2 d 5 6 9 ) (2 0 1 1 ). Th e tria l c o u rt he re

d id c o n d u c t th e “rig oro u s a n a ly sis” c on te m p la te d in Wa l-Ma rt S to re s, In c

. v

.

Du k e s,

_ _ U.S

.

_ _ (II) (A) (1 3 1 S Ct 2 54 1, 1 8 0 LE2 d 3 7 4 ) (2 0 1 1 )

, a n d

c o n c lu d e d th a t c o m m o n issu e s, ty p ic a l o f th o se fa c e d a c ro ss th e c la ss, wo u ld

p re d om in a te o v e r issu e s o f a n in d iv id u a liz e d n a tu re

. Se e Griffin In d u s., In c

. v

.Gre e n , 29 7 Ga

. A p p

. 3 5 4

, 3 5 -3 5 6 (2 ) (6 7 7 SE2 d 3 1 0 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (a f f i r mi n g tria l

c o u rt’s d e c isio n to c e rtify c la s s u n d e r a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f re v ie w,

wh ile no tin g th a t u n de r a d e n o v o sta nd ard th e o u tc o m e of th e a pp e a l m a y h a v e

b e e n d iffe re n t). Th is d e te rm in a tio n did n o t c o n stitu te a n a b use o f d isc re tio n ,

a n d it sh o u ld b e a ffirm e d.

F i r s t

, th e tria l c o u rt wa s we ll with in its d isc re tio n in fin d in g th e

c o m m o na lity re q u ire m e n t to h a ve b e e n sa tis f i e d

. G e o rg ia -P a c ific is th e so le

d e fe n d a n t wh o se si n g le c ou rse of c o n d u c t h a s a lle g e d ly a ffe c te d a ll c la ss

m e m b e rs in a c o m m o n m a n n e r. Th e p la in tiffs ha v e ra ise d a n um b e r o f c o m m o n

issu e s with re g a rd to e sta b l i s h i n g G e o rg ia -P a c ific ’s liab ility

, in c lu din g G e o rg ia

P a c ific ’s o p e ra tio n s a t th e S a v a n n a h Riv e r Mill, its wa ste d isp osa l p ra c tic e s, a n d

its sa fe ty p ro g ra m ; th e ty pe a n d c o n c e n tra tio n o f c h e m ic a ls e m itte d f ro m th e

Mill a n d slu d g e fie ld s; a n d th e p ro p e rtie s a n d to x ic ity o f h y dro g e n su lfid e a n d

its c a p a c ity to c a

u s e p r o p e rty d a m a ge an d ill h e a lth e ffe c ts. Th e re so lu tio n o f

a ll o f th e se issu e s will de p e n d o n t h e sa m e e v id e n c e , n o m a tte r th e c la ss

m e m b e r. Th e a n swe rs to a ll th e se q u e stio n s c a n b e g e n e ra te d e ffic ie n tly , o n a

c la sswid e b a sis, “ in o n e stro k e .” Du k e s, _

_ U.S . a t _

_ (II) (A).

2F o r sim ila r re a so n s, th e tria l c o urt a p pro p ria te ly fo un d th a t th e ty p ic a lity

re q u ire m e n t h a s b e e n sa tisfie d

. S e e Lib e rty Le n d in g S v c s., In c

. v

. Ca n a d a , 2 9 3

Ga

. Ap p

. 7 3 1, 7 3 8 (1 ) (b ) (6 6 8 S E2 d 3 ) (2 0 08 ) (ty p ic a lity sa tisfie d b y sh o win g

“ th a t th e d e fe n da n t ‘c o m m itte d th e sa m e u n l a w f u l a c ts in th e sa m e m e th o d

a g a in st [th e ] e n tire c la ss’” ). Co n tra ry to th e v ie w e x p re sse d in th e c o n c u rrin g

o p in io n , th e fa c t th a t th e c la ss in c lu d e s pro p e rtie s with d iffe re n t u se s d o e s n o t

d e fe a t ty p ic a lity

. Th ou g h th e p a rtic u la r u se to wh ic h a pa rc e l is p u t m a y a ffe c t

th e m e a su re o f d a m a g e s in c u rre d

, th e p re se nc e o f in d iv id u a liz e d d a m a ge s issu e s

d o e s n o t a lte r th e fa c t th a t a sin g l e c o u r s e o f c on du c t o n th e p a rt o f G e o rg ia

P a c ific is a ll e g e d to h a v e c a u se d in ju ry to th e e n tire c la ss. S e e id ; se e a lso

Bre n n ta g , 3 08 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 9 0 6 -9 0 7 (p re se nc e of in d iv id ua liz e d d a m a g e s issu e s

d id n o t d e fe a t ty p ic a lity or a n y o f th e oth e r re q u ire m e n ts fo r c la ss c e rtific a tio n ).

Mo re ov e r, th e pla in tiffs d id n o t re ly o n m e re a lle g a tio n s in su p p o rt o f th e ir

re q u e st fo r c la ss c e rtific a tio n

. Th e p la in tiffs p re se n te d th e d e p ositio n te stim o n y

o f Ge o rg ia -P a c ific ’s e n v iro nm e n ta l m a n a g e r, wh o a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h y d ro g e n

su lfid e wa s b e in g e m itte d fro m th e slu d g e fie ld s a n d a d m itte d

, fo r e x a m p le

, th e

c o m p a ny ’s k n o wle d g e r e g a

r d i n g t h e n o x i o u s o d o rs fro m th e se e m issio ns a n d th e

d a m a g e c a

u se d to a ir c o n d i t i o n in g u n its o n v a rio u s n e a rb y p ro p e rtie s. Th e

3p la in tiffs a lso p re se n te d te stim o n y fro m a p r o p e rty a p p ra ise r re g a rd in g th e

m e th o d o lo g y e m

p lo y e d in a sc e rta in in g th e c la ss b o u n d a rie s a n d th e p ro c e ss b y

wh ic h o n e wo uld d e te rm in e th e d im in utio n o f a p ro p e rty ’s v a lu e re su ltin g fro m

e n v i ro n m e n ta l c o n ta m in a n ts. Th e p la in tiffs p re se nte d fu rth e r te stim o n y

p ro v id in g sp e c ific e v id e nc e o f d a m a g e to th e a ir c o n d itio n in g u n its o n c e rta i n

p ro p e rtie s in p ro xim ity to th e Mill. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e p la in tiffs sa tisfie d th e ir

d u ty to e sta b lish c o m m on a lity a n d ty p ic a lity with e v id e n c e , a s o p po se d to m e re

a lle g a tio n s.

Lik e wise

, I wo u ld fin d n o a b u se o f d isc r e tio n in th e tria l c o u rt’s

c o n c lu sio n th a t, o n b a la n c e , th e c o m m o n issu e s re ga rd in g liab ility p re d o m in a te

o v e r th e in d iv id u a liz e d issu e s in v o lv in g d a m a g e s. Se e Bre nn ta g , 3 0 8 G a

. Ap p

.

a t 9 0 6 -9 0 7 (a ffirm in g c la ss c e rtific a tio n in su it in v o lv in g th e a c c id e n ta l re le a se

o f to x ic a c id fro m a c h e m ic al s to ra g e ta n k lo c a te d a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa c ility

,

c o n c lu d in g th a t “ ‘[c ] o m m o n i s s u e s m a y p re d o m in a te wh e n liab ility c a n b e

d e te rm in e d o n a c la ss-wid e b a sis

, e v e n wh e n th e re a re so m e in d iv id u a liz e d

d a m a g e s issu e s’” ); F lo urn o y v

. Ho ne y we ll In t’l, I n c ., 23 9 F RD 6 9 6 (S .D.

Ga .2 0 0 6 ) (c e rtify in g a Ru le 2 3 (b ) ( 3 ) cl a s s o f p ro pe rty o w n e rs su in g fo r

4d a m a g e s a lle g e d ly c a u s e d b y p o llu ta n ts e m a n a tin g fro m de fe n d a n t’s n e a rb y

p la n t). 1

2

. Th o u g h th e m a

jo rity p u rp o rts to fin d in su ffic ie n t c o m m o n a lity a m o n g

c la ss m e m

b e rs (a nd h in ts th a t it m ig h t fin d ty p ic a lity a n d p re d o m in a n c e la c k in g

fo r th e sa m e re a so ns), th e issu e th e m a jo rity a c tu a lly p in p o in ts a s p ro b le m a tic

is th e c la ss d e fin itio n. S p e c ific a lly

, th e m a jo rity fin d s fa u lt w ith th e m a n n e r in

wh ic h th e c la ss b o u n d a rie s we re d e te rm in e d an d th e p o te n tia l o v e r- o r

u n d e rin c lu siv e ne ss of th e c la ss. Ho we ve r, th e issu e o f wh e th e r a p ro po se d c la ss

is s u f f i c ie n tly p re c ise a n d a sc e rta in a b le is n o t c o e x te n siv e with th e issu e o f

c o m m o na lity

. Se e , e .g ., Sm ith v

. C o no c o P hillip s,

_ _ _ F RD a t

_

_ _ (IV)

( a n a l y z in g c la ss d e fin itio n in d e p e n d e n tly o f c o m m o n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t ) ; J a c k s o n

v

. Un o c a l, 2 6 2 P 3 d a t 8 8 7 -8 8 8 (sa m e ). C o urts h a v e ty p ic a lly a sse sse d th e

su ffic ie n c y o f a p ro p o se d c l a ss d e fin itio n “ [i] n k e e p in g with th e lib e ra l

c o n stru c tio n to b e giv e n [to Ru le 2 3 ] .” Ch a rle s Ala n Wrig h t e t a l., 7 A F e d

.

P ra c

. & Pro c

. Civ

. § 1 7 6 0 (3 d e d

. 2 0 1 4 ). “All th a t is re q u ire d is a ‘re a so n a b le ’

1 See al s o Sm i th v

. Co n o co Ph i l l i p s Pi p e Li n e Co

.,

_ _ _ F RD

_ _ _ , 2 0 1 4 W L
1 3 1 4 9 4 2 (E.D. M o

. M ar. 3 1

, 2 0 1 4 ) (cert ify i n g p ro p ert y d am ag e cl as s d es p i t e n eed fo r i n d i v i d u al d am ag es as s es s m en t s ); Po we l l v

. T o s h

, 2 8 0 FRD 2 9 6 (W .D. Ky

. 2 0 1 2 ) (s am e); J ack s o n v

. Un o cal Co rp ., 2 6 2 P3 d 87 4 (Co l o. 2 01 1 ) (affi rm i n g cert i fi cat i o n

o f p ro p ert y

d am ag e cl as s d es p it e n eed fo r i n d i vi d u al d am ag es as s es s m en t s ).

5re la tio nsh ip b e twe e n th e e v id e n c e a n d th e c la ss b o u n da rie s a s p ro p o se d b y th e

p la in tiff.” Ja c k so n v

. Un o c a l, 2 6 2 P3 d a t 8 87

. S e e a lso S m ith v

.

Co n o c o P h illip s,

_

_ _ F R D a t

_

_ _ (IV) S m ith v

. Co n o c o Ph illip s,

_ __ F RD a t

_

_ _
(IV) (a t c la ss c e rtific a tio n sta g e , “ p la in tiffs a re n o t re qu ire d to a d d u c e d e fin itiv e

e v id e n c e a

b o u t th e e x te nt a n d sc o p e o f th e c on ta m in a tio n

. . . . P la in tiffs n e e d

so m e e v id e nc e th a t c o n ta m in a tio n wa s p re se n t in th e c la ss a re a .” ).

Asse sse d u n d e r th is sta n d a rd

, th e e v id e nc e h e re wa s su ffic ie n t to su sta in

th e c la ss a s d e fin e d a t th is sta ge o f th e p ro c e e d in gs. A c c o rd in g to th e p la in tiffs,

th e fa rth e st p o in t fro m th e c la ss to th e slu d g e fie ld s is a p p ro xim a te ly .9 m ile s.

Ge o rg ia -P a c ific ’s e n v iro n m e n ta l m a n a g e r a c k n o wle d ge d in d e p o sitio n

te stim o n y th a t th e c o m

p a n y h a s re c e iv e d c o mp la in ts a b o u t th e o d o r fro m th e

Mill fro m fo u r to fiv e m ile s a wa y a n d th a t th e o d o r fro m th e h y d ro g e n su lfid e

g a s wo u ld re a c h e v e ry m e m b e r of th e p ro po se d c la ss. Te stim on y fro m two a ir

c o n d itio n in g te c hn ic ia n s su p p o rts th e c o n c lu sio n t h a t th e g a se s wo uld lik e ly

a ffe c t a ll a ir c on d itio n in g u n its with in th e c la ss a re a

. Ge o rg ia -P a c ific ha s in fa c t

re c e iv e d c om

p la in ts re g a rd in g c o rro sio n o f a ir c o n d itio n in g u n its u p to 2.4 m ile s

a wa y fro m th e Mill, w e l l be y o n d th e c la ss b o u nd arie s, a n d h a s a ssu m e d

re sp o n sib ility fo r re p la c in g a n a ir c o n d itio nin g u nit du e to c orro sio n o n a t le a st

6o n e p ro p e rty ly in g o u tsid e th e c la ss b o u n d a rie s. Th is fa c t

, h i g h lig h te d b y th e

m a jo rity to su p p ort its fin d in g o f a n a b se n c e o f c o m m o n a lity

, a c tu a lly

e sta b lish e s ju st th e o p p o site : in a n a b u n d a n c e of c a u tio n , th e pla in tiffs d re w

t h e ir c la ss b o u n d a rie s c o nse rv a tiv e ly

, d e lib e ra te ly e x c lu din g so m e p o te n t i a l

p la in tiffs to a v o id c re a tin g a n o v e r-in c lu siv e c la ss th a t wo uld tru ly la c k

c o m m o na lity

. S e e Wrig ht, 7 A F e d. P ra c

. & Pro c

. C i v

. § 1 7 6 0 (n o tin g th a t

p o te ntia l un d e rin c lu siv e n e ss o f a p ro p o se d c la ss is n o t f a t a l t o a c la ss

d e fin itio n ). In sh o rt, th e e v id e n c e su p p o rte d th e p la in tiffs’ pro p o s e d c la ss

d e fin itio n , a

n d th e m a jo rity is wro n g to c o n c lu de o th e rwise

.

3

. Th o u g h I d isa g re e wit h t h e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e c la ss a s c u rre n tly

d e fin e d is n o t su pp o rte d b y th e c u rre n t re c o rd

, I n o te th a t th e m a jo rity ’s o p in io n

e x p re ssly c o n te m

p la te s t h e p o s sib ility th a t th e p la in tiffs h e re c o u ld still, with

a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e , e sta b lish th e e x iste n c e o f a su sta in a b le c la ss. S e e OCGA

§ 9 -1 1 -2 3 (c ) (1 ), (d ) (b o th su b se c tio n s g iv in g tria l c o u rts th e a uth ority

, p rio r to

a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits, to a lte r o r a m e n d o rd e rs re g a rd in g c la ss c e rtific a tio n o r

c a se m a n a g e m e n t); se e a lso F u lle r v

. H e ar two o d 1 1, 3 0 1 Ga

. A p p

. 3 0 9 (6 8 7

S E2 d 2 8 7 ) (2 00 9) (n o tin g a b se n c e o f fix e d d e a d lin e in sta tu te o r c o u rt ru le s b y

7wh ic h c la ss m u st b e c e rtifie d ). It th us re m a in s to be se e n wh e th e r th is c a se will

m o v e fo rwa rd a s a

c la ss a c tio n

.

I a m a u th o riz e d to sta te th a t Ju stic e Be n h a m c o n c urs in th is d isse n t.

8