UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

CONSOLIDATED CASES SUMMARY CALENDAR

In re: COMBUSTION, INC.

___________________________________

No. 97-31040

___________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL, Defendants,

VICKIE GUNTER, as Administratrix for the Succession of Mary M. Gunter; TAMMY SALTER, as representative for John Salter, Claimants-Appellants. * * * *

___________________________________

No. 97-31041

____________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL., Defendants,

JOEL E. TALLEY; PATRICIA H. TALLEY; SARA E. TALLEY, Minor, Claimants-Appellants.

* * * *

__________________________________

No. 97-311322 ___________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL., Defendants,

DAVID H. SMITH; REBECCA G. SMITH; ELLEN S. BALLARD, Claimants-Appellants.

* * * *

___________________________________

No. 97-31138

___________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL., Defendants,

ROBERT W. THIBODAUX, Claimant-Appellant.

* * * *

___________________________________

No. 97-31139

___________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL., Defendants,

BENNIE T. VAIL, Claimant-Appellant.3 * * * *

___________________________________

No. 97-31206

____________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABC CORP., ET AL., Defendants,

KAREN VAIL HOLMES, Claimant-Appellant.

* * * *

___________________________________

No. 97-31340

____________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL E. TALLEY, on behalf of son MATTHEW B. TALLEY, Claimant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(94-MDL-4000)

September 18, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 Mary M. Gunter and John Salter are represented herein by their succession representatives.

4 POLITZ, Chief Judge: *

Appellants Mary M. Gunter, John Salter, Joel E. Talley, Patricia H. Talley,

Matthew B. Talley (minor), Sara E. Talley (minor), David H. Smith, Rebecca G.

Smith, Ellen S. Ballard, Robert W. Thibodaux, Bennie T. Vail, and Kare n Vail

Holmes appeal a judgment of the district court allocating damages in this case. 1

This appeal arises out of a toxic tort class action involving a hazardous waste

site located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The site served as an oil recycling

center until 1980 and is now known as th e Combustion, Inc. Superfund Site.

Pr ocedurally, this litigation is extremely complex and it has extended over an

11–year time span. Throughout this period, the district judge has done a fine job

of managing this case and assuring that the claimants’ interests were protected. To

this end, the district judge appointed a specia l master to, i nter alia

, establish

appropriate criteria to evaluate claims and to propose allocations of damages to be

paid to the many class members. The amount of each class member’s recovery was

determined in part by placement in recovery categories established by the special

master. A claimant’s placement in a recovery category was determined after

weighing numerous factors, including proximity to the site, severity of exposure,

and extent of damages.

In their briefs, several of the appellants raise class-wide issues including the2 Walker v. City of Mesquite , 858 F.2d 1071 (5 th Cir. 1988).

3 In addition to these adjus tments, corrections were also made for coding and distance errors totaling $2,825,334.

5 adequacy of class representation, the fa irness of partial settlements with defendants,

and the fixing of reserves in order to establish the Claimants’ Fund. These classwide issues were resolved by a series of final judgments rendere d by the district

court. These issues were not appealed by the attorneys representing the class

representatives, they are no t now appealable by appellants and, thus, are not

properly before this court. 2

Issues properly before this court include those related to the individual final

judgments affirming award allocations determined by the special master. The

appellants contend that they did not receive adequate compensation because they

were placed in the wrong recovery category and they further claim that they were

not given a full and fair hearing by the district judge. As noted s upra , the district

judge has done a laudable job in managing this massive litigation. After a close

review of the record, we find no basis for the contention that the district judge erred

or abused his discretion in his review of the special master’s allocation of damages

for any appellant.

After receipt of the special master’s r e port recommending allocation of

damage awards, t he district court ordered that class members be given the

opportunity to contest any finding made by the special master. Hearings before the

special master resulted in upward adjustments totaling $1,917,496. 3 While the

appellants understandably are upset that they were damaged by the pollutants left6

at the Com bustion site, the district judge was faced with the difficult task of

determining the proper distribution of limited funds. Our review of the record,

briefs, and the applicable law discloses neither error nor abuse of discretion in the

allocations appealed.

The judgments appealed are AFFIRMED.