NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0046n.06 F iled: Janu ary 22, 2009 No. 07-6033 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CYNTHI A TURNAGE Plaintiff, and BRET F REEMAN Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. NOR FO L K S OU T HER N CORPORATI ON; NORFO L K SOUTHERN RAI L WAY COMPANY De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL F RO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: SI L ER, B AT CH EL DE R, a nd RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. ROGERS, Ci rcuit Judge. Cy nthia Turnag e and B ret F ree man sued Nor folk Southern for private nuisanc e caused by a train dera ilment and subsequent chemica l spill, and sought to cer tify a cla ss. The district court de nied their motion for c lass cer tification becau s e the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the number of people who had been harme d by the spill, but not fully compensated, was suff iciently numerous to make joinder impractica

ble. Fr eema

n now appe als. Beca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it fo un d th a t F re e man fai le d to de mon str a te imp ra c tic a

bil ity of joi nd e r, we a ff

ir m.No. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 2 - I. On Sunday , September 15, 2002, at approxim ately 11:20 a.m., a train owned and ope rate d by Norfolk South ernC o rp o ra t i o nan d i t s s u b s i d i ary No rf o l k S o u t h ernR ai l wa y

(“ No rf o l k Southern”) dera iled in Knox County , Tenne ssee. A ta nker filled with sulfuric ac id leaked, f orming a cloud of water and sulphuric a cid above portions of Blount and Knox C ounty . The Knox County emer g ency manag ement ag ency order ed a mandatory evac uation of re sidents living within a 1.3-mile ra dius of the d e r a i l m e n ts i t e an d

a v o l u n t ar y e v a c u a t i o no f

r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g w i t h i na

3

- m i l e r a d i u s . N o r fo lk So u th e r nd is p a tc h e d

e me r g e n c y

h a zar d o u s mate r ia l c le an u p c r e w s to th e a c c id e n t s it e to n e u tr a li ze the le a kin g su lph

ur ic a c id. Th e e va c uatio n w a s p art ia lly lif te d at 9: 00 p. m. o n M on da y and e nti re ly lifted at 7:00 a.m. on Tuesda y , September 17. Following the dera ilment, Nor folk Southern set up cla im center s to allow those aff ecte d by t h e a cc i d en tt o re ce i v e i m m ed i at e r ei mb u rs em en t fo r o u t -o f- p o ck et ex p en d i tu re s fo r fo o d , cl o t h i n g, lodging , and other

evac uation-re lated expenses. Ac cordingto Norfolk Southern’s re cords, on whic h Fr eema n has chosen to r ely , there wer e 963 households located in the 1.3-mile radius, of w hich 827 households rec eived some f orm of compe nsation, and an a dditional 6047 i n the 3-mile ra dius, of which 1037 re ceive d compensation. Fr eema n and his family

lived approximately

1.1 miles from the der ailment site. They
evac uated their home without e noug h time to pack and sta y ed for sever al day s with Fre eman’ s inlaws. De spite the end of the evac uation, which was widely announce d throug h broadc ast and print media, F ree man and his family did not return home until Wednesday . As a re sult, Free man wasNo. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 3 - unable to wor

k Sunday throug h Wednesday

and incur

red out-of

-pocke t expenses f

o r food a nd pe rs on a l item s. He a lso pa rt ia lly dr a ine d a

nd re fi lle d h is s wi mmi ngpo ol a nd po we r w a sh e d h is house, boats, and c ars a fter his re turn. Cy nth ia Turn a g e , th e or ig ina l pl a int if f i n th is su it, fi le d a c la ss a c tio n laws uit a g a ins t N or fo lk Southern on J une 3, 2003, in the Circuit Court for B lo u n t County , Tenne ssee. Tur nag e soug ht compensatory

and punitive damage s on behalf of a cla ss of all persons a

nd businesses who suff

ere d
e c on omi c los se s a s a

re su lt o f t he tr a in d e ra ilm e nt. No rf

olk Sou the rn su

bs e qu e ntl y re mov e d the c a se to fede ra l c o u rt. T u r

n a g e a me n d e d th e c o mp la in t o n A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , a d d in g B r e t F r e e ma nand Donn Steltz er a s additional class represe ntatives. Donn Stelzer died on Aug ust 26, 2003, and was
remove d as a pla intiff. Plaintiffs filed their first motion for cla ss cer tification o n Au gu s t 2 1, 2003. On J une 21, 2004, the di strict court denied the m otion without prejudice as pre mature. Plaintiffs filed a rene wed motion for class ce rt i fi cation on March 30, 2005. The matter wa s ref err ed to a mag istrate, who issued a repor

t a nd rec ommendation that the motion be denied beca use the plaintiffs had not prove d that the class wa s so numerous as to make joinder impractica ble. First, the mag istrate noted that the plaintiffs “produc ed little more than shee r spec ulation to show that residents in [the affe cted] are a, other than the named plaintiffs, ha [d] in fac t suffer ed dama g es as a result of the derailment” or that “those residents who ha[d] already rec eived c ompensation . . . ha[d] not been f ully compensated for their injuries.” Sec ond, the mag istrate noted that “ beca use the potential class member s are in such a limited geog raphic al ar ea, joinder of any potential plaintiffs . . . would be re latively easy .” TheNo. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 4 - district court ac cepte d the m ag istrate’s report and rec ommendation in whole, and issued an orde r on November

15, 2005, denying c lass cer tificatio n . T h e p arties ther eaf ter e ntere d into a stipulated
a g re e me nt t

hat di smi sse d a ll c la ims by Cy nth ia Turn a g e and

F reem an’s cla im w ithre sp e c t to punit ive dama g e s. Throug hout the case , the plaintiffs filed multiple ame n d e d c o mplaints, renewe d motions, and clar ifying motions. Many of these filings offe red new char acte rizations of the class that the plaintiffs purported to r epre sent, ca using the class def

inition t o g o throug h as m any as seven iterations during the course of the litig ation. The mag istrate, primar ily rely ing on the plaintiffs’ third ame nded
c omp la int , c on sid e re d a

nd re je c te d a c la ss d e fi ne d a s: All persons (1) who eva cuate d their real property and/or “ sheltere d in place,” and/or we re pr e ve nte d f

ro m r e turnin g t o th e ir

ho me s and

(2 ) w ho su ff

e re d a ll ava ila

ble nuisance damag es, i ncluding economic losses and inconvenience , as a result of, and wi thi n a thr e e mil e ra diu s f

ro m, t he de ra ilm e nt a

nd toxic sp ill
. Fr eema n rene wed the motion to cer tify a cla ss o n Fe b ru ary

14, 2007, less than a we ek bef ore the
case was set f

or trial on the issue of

his damag es. The c lass Fr eema n soug ht to cer

tify at that point
w a s “ a l l p e r s o n s w h o w e r e e v a c u a t e d f r o m t h e s u r

r o u n d i n g ar e a . ” T h e c o u rt h e l d a h e ar i n g t w o d a ys later a nd denied the motion, re fer ring back to the r easoningin the mag istr at e’ s repor t and
rec ommendation. On J u l y 2 5, 2007, following a benc h trial, the district court e ntere d an orde r of fin al j u d gm ent awa

rding Fr eema

n $3480. Fr eema

n now appe als the cour

t’s ref usal to cer

tify the
c l a s s d e f i n e d i nh i s l a s tm o t i o nt o c e rt i f y.

II.No. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 5 - Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

di d no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it fo un d th a t F re e man d id n ot m e e t hi s burden to de monstrate imprac ticability of joinder. The court proper ly denied class ce rtification for fa ilure to m e e t F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Pr oc e dure 23 (a )( 1) , w hic h r e qu ir e s th e pla int if f t o d e mon str a te aff irmatively

the imprac ticability

of join d e r a s a p r e requisite to ce rtification. In re Am erican Me dical Systems, I

nc. , 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6 t h Cir. 1996). Two fa ctors we igh strong ly ag ainst Fre eman: first, the ea se of identifying potential plaintiffs due to the ir tight g eog raphic al proxim ity to eac h other and the discr ete nature of the harm, a nd second, the speculative nature of the class siz e. The district court has broad discretion to decide w hether to cer tify a cla ss, id. , and we do not disturb the district court’s de termination here
. Unlike some propose d classes that are sprea d t h ro u gh o u t a city , state, or e ven the e ntire
c o un t r y , e v e r y p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f

f i n t h i s c a s e l i v e s w i t h i n a t h r e e - m i l e r a d i u s . A n d u n l ike so me ha rm s th a t take pla c e ov e r l on g sp ans of tim e and re qu ir e y e ars to m a te ri a lize , th e ha rm in t his c a se
occur red at one brief

point in ti me and wa s immediately obvious in it s eff

ec t s . Reg ardle ss of the actua l number of plaintiffs in this case , their proximi ty to eac h other a

nd the discre te and obvious
natur e of the ha rm mak e ide nti fy

ingand c on ta c tin g the m r e la tiv e ly e a sy . F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Procedur e 23(a )(1) require s as a pr ere quis i t e t o cl ass ac tion that “the class [be] so numerous that joi nd e r o f a ll m e mbe rs is i mpr a c tic a ble .” Whil e thi s r e qu ir e me nt i s c ommon ly referre d to a s a “numer osity ” re quirement, the r eal issu e i s wh ether the plaintiff see king c lass cer tification has demonstrated impractica

bility of joinder. In re Am erican Me dical Systems , 7 5 F .3 d at10 79 . Wh ile larg e number s may , in man y cases, indicate impra cticability of joinder, number s are not a per fec tNo. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 6 - p r e d ic to r . Rath e r th an n a mi n g a s p e c if ic n u mb e r , Ru le 2 3 p la c e s th e s iz e o f th e c la s s in th e c o n te xt of ac tual impractica

bility of joinder. When conside ring whether joinder would be prac ticable in a g iven ca se, cour

ts may consider “ ease o f i d entifying me mbers and de termining addre sses, ea se of service on members if joined, [and] ge og raphic al dispersion” a mong othe r thing s. Lib e rty Lin c oln Merc ury, Inc . v. Ford Mark eting Corp. , 149 F.R.D. 65, 74 (D .N.J . 1993). Th e sp e c ulativ e natur e of

F re e man’ s e sti ma te s f

ur the r d e mon str a te s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt did
no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it fo und th at the c la ss w a s n ot s uf fi c ie ntl y nume ro us to m e ri t
c e r ti f ic a ti o n . I n h is a rg ument reg ardingnumerosity , Fr eema n relied on N orfolk Southern’s state ment that the 1.3-mile mandatory evac uation radius cove red 963 house holds and that the 3-mile voluntary
evac uation radius cove red a n additional 6,047 households. Of these , 827 of the households in the mandatory

evac uation zone and 1,037 in the voluntary evac uati o n z o ne we re c ompensated by No rf olk Sou the rn ’s vo lun tary

e ff or ts. F re e man of

fe re d what he be lie ve d to be a re a so na ble e sti ma te of three people pe r household in orde r to conc lude that as many as 15,000 people had y et to be compensated. This court has co nsistently held that “[t] here is no strict numerical test for deter mining impractica

bility of joinder.” In re Am erican Me dical Systems , 75 F .3 d at 10 79 . T he c ourt ha s a lso
sa id t hat “ [w]he n c la ss s ize re a c he s su bs tanti a l pr op or

tio ns . . . th e imp ra c tic a

bil ity re qu ir e me nt i s
u s u al l y satisfied by

the numbers a lone.” Id. Nonethele ss, “imprac ticability of joinder must be positively shown, and cannot be speculative.” Golden v. City of Columbus , 404 F .3 d 9 50 , 9 66 (6 th Cir. 2005). Severa l fac ts of t his case weig h ag ainst rely ing sole ly on the see mingly

larg e number

ofNo. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 7 - potential class member s: first, Fre eman ’s n u m b ers necessa rily encompa ss a larg er g roup than he
c la ims to re pr e se nt, and se c on d, F re e man ha s not pr od uc e d c on c re te e vid e nc e of nume ro sity

de sp ite having had ample oppor

tunity to do so. Although he states a lar g e number based on e very h o u s eh o l d potentially aff ecte d by the de ra ilm e nt, F re e man do e s no t purp or t to re pr e se nt e ve ry pe rs on liv ingwi thi n th e thr e e -m ile ra diu s. The c lass definition advanc ed by Fr eema n throug hout this case has been a moving targ et. Whether we look to the def

inition adva n ce d i n Fr eeman’s most rece nt motion t o cer tify or the de finition considere d by

the mag istrate, the r esult is the same. B oth definitions make cl ea r t hat Fr eema n
a tte mpt s to re pr e se nt a

su b- c la ss o f r e sid e nts of

the thr e e -m ile ra diu s w ho e xpe ri e nc e d s ome appre ciable da

mag e fr om the dera ilment. As the mag istrate observed, F ree man has not made any
e ff or t to sh ow that the re sid e nts he inc lud e s in his numb e rs su ff e re d a c tua l da

ma g e . With r e g a rd

to his most recent definition, which includes all persons evac uated f rom the surroundingare a, F ree man d o e s n o t s ay

h o w ma n y o f th e 1 5 , 0 0 0 s u

p p o s e d ly u n c o mp e n s a te d

r e s id e n ts a c tu a ll y

evac uated. Those who did not eva cuate must be excluded fr om the class and the ref ore f rom Fr eema

n’s estimated numbers. With reg ard to the de finition considered by the magis t ra t e, which includes
evac uees a

n d n o n -e v acue es who we re ha rmed in var ious way s, Fre eman’ s class does not include those reside nts of t he three-mile ra dius who suffer ed little to no damag e. The omitted gr oup might inc lud e tho se wh o w e re ou t of tow n d ur ingthe e va c uatio n, tho se in t he vo lun tary

zon e wh o c ho se
no t to e va c uate and

wh os e da ily ro uti ne s we re lit tle dis tur be d, and tho se wh o w e re a ble to r e loc a te temporar ily

to other quar

ters with little inconvenience or expense.No. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 8 - The F ifth Circuit offer s helpful analy sis of a situation wher e a w ould-be c lass repr esentative states a lar g e number , but that number includes individuals within the proposed c lass mix ed tog ether indiscriminately

with others not wit h i n t he propose d class. Zeidman v. J. R ay Mc Dermott & Co. , 651 F.2d 1030 ( 5th Cir. 1981). Zeidman involved a suit by investors who alleg ed that seve ral
co mp an i es i s s u edfa l s e i n fo rm at i o n i n o rd er t o d ep re s s t h e v al u e o f c er t ai ns ec u ri t i es d u ri n g a pending tender

offe r. Id. a t 10 33
. I n or de r to e sta bli shnume ro sit

y , th e pla int if

fs a sse rt e d th a t ne a rl y six milli on share s were sold d u ri n g t h e re l evant dates. Id. at 1034. The F ifth Circuit noted the
re a so na ble ne ss o f t

he pla int if

fs ’ a ssumpt ion

that “any c la ss co mpo se d of the se lle rs of a natio na lly trade d secur ity

during a per iod in which hundreds of thousands or eve n milli ons of sh ar es o f the
secur ity wer e tra ded mus t nece ssarily be so numerous that joi nder of all members is imprac ticable,” and the c ourt commented that such numbers norma lly would establish numerosity
. Id. at 1039 (interna l quotation marks omitted). Yet t hat court found t he cla ss siz e in that ca se to be spec ulative. First, the c ourt noted that ce rtain cate g ories of investors wer e excluded from the class, meaningthe plaintiffs’ ag g reg ate number s nece ssarily ref err ed to a g roup th at was larg er tha n the g roup they purported to r epre sent. Id. at 1040. Second, the court noted that the trial cour t ga ve the plaintiffs
a chanc e to submit additional evidenc e prior to r ender ing a final decision. Id. Given these fac ts, the
a p p e l l a t e c o u rtd e t e r

m i n e d t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rt h a d n o t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y r e f u s i n g t o c e rt i f

y a
c la ss. The plaintiff in the instant c ase cites larg e numbers, but his numbers include not j u s t the members of

his proposed class but ever y resident of

the three -mile radius. Without “some evidenceNo. 07-6033

Tur nagev . No rfo lk

So uth e rn

- 9 - of the size either of

the excluded g roup o r o f t h e remaining c lass,” id. , Fr eema n’s evidenc e of
nume ro sity

re ma ins sp e c ulativ e . Furt he rm or e , F re e man h a d ampl e op po rt un ity duri ngthe c ours e of this protrac ted litigation to supply concr ete e vidence o f n u m erosity if there wer e any

such evidenc e to be had. The magistrate’s re commendation and r eport a lerted F ree man to his evidence probl em m o re than six wee ks befor e the district cour t issued its order. More than a y ear passed befor e F ree man a gai n rene wed his motion to certify . Given the c lose g eog raphic al proxim ity of
su pp os e dly tho us and s o f c la ss m e mbe rs, the ta sk of g a the ri ngc on c re te e vid e nc e of nume ro sity should not have bee n difficult. Yet F ree man did not submit evidenc e to the dis trict court of even one additional person who w ished to seek a leg al re med y

ag ainst Norfolk Southern. The ref ore the district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion when it f ound that the evidenc e of numerosity wa s too speculative to merit cer

tification.

III . For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.