FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 15 79 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 88 9- CV-T-3 3- AEP NANCY SHER, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , JAM ES R. ABEL, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , CAROL A. CALECA, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , LOUIS GIOCONDO, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , BETTY L. KEY, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pla in ti ffs -Ap pe ll ees , LINDA SWARTOUT, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y si tu at ed , et al ., Con so li da te d- Pl ai nt iff s,ve rs us

RAYTHEON COMPANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 9, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, HILL andALARCON, Cir cu itJu dg es . * HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge : Inth is cas e al le gi ng en vi ro nm en ta l co nt am in at io n, d efen da ntRaytheo n Co m pa ny (Rayth eo n) ap pe al s fr om anin te rlo cu to ry

ord er g ran ti ng cla ss -act io n cert ifi cat io n u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 23 (f). The pl ai nt iff s ar e Nan cy

Sh er, J am es R. Abe l, Caro l A. Cal eca, Lo ui s C io co nd o, Be tt y L. Key , (th e Pl ai nt iff

s) . The Pl ai nt iff s p ur po rt t o re pr es en t a c la ss co ns is ti ng of a ll own ers of r eal pro pe rty im pa ct edby the all eg edco nt am in at io n. Th is ap pe al pe rta in s t o o nl y th e g ran t o f cl as s ce rti fic at io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, n otth e m eri ts of t he cas e. W e h ol d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredas m at te r of law b y no t s uf fic ie nt ly
ev al ua ti ng an d wei gh in g c on fli ct in g e xp erttes ti m on y pre se nt edby the pa rti es at
Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. 2th e cl as s ce rti fic at io n s ta ge . Se e Vega v . T-Mo bi le USA, In c. , 56 4 F .3d12 56 , 1 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e co nc lu de th atfact s h av e n otbe ende te rm in edsu ffi ci en t to supp ort ce rti fy in g acla ss at t hi s t im e. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt, i n i ts Ru le 23
an al y si s, erredas am at te r of law i n g ran ti ng cla ss cert ifi cat io n. Se e Klayv. Uni te d Hea lthgro up , Inc
. , 37 6 F .3d10 92 , 10 96 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). I. The Pla in ti ffs all eg e th atRaytheo n, t hr ou gh im pr op er d is po sa l an d/ or st or ag e o f ha zard ou s was te at i ts St. Pe te rs bu rg , Flo rid a fac il it y , is res po ns ib le for th e rel eas e o f to xi c was te in to th e g ro un dwa te r of th e su rro un di ng ne ig hb orho od s. The parti es pre se nt edbri ef t es ti m on y of t he Pla in ti ffs . In al l, the di st ric t co urt he lda th ree- da y

ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e Pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n fo r cl as s cert ifi cat io n. To d em on st rat e th e p red om in an ce o f co m m on is su es un de r Ru le 23 (b )(3 ), th e Pl ai nt iff

s’ gro un dwa te r ex pe rt, Dr. Ph il ip Bed ie nt , id en ti fie d t he im pa ct edarea as a to xi c u nd erg ro un d p lu m e stret ch in g app ro xi m at el y on e m il e lo ng an d 1 .7
m il es wid e fro m

th e Raythe on faci li ty. 2 Inaneffo rt t o p ro ve th atth e cl ai m s o f th e Pl ai nt iff s fo r co m pe ns at ory an d By so holding, we need not discuss a ny rema ining issues. 1 This plume is alleg ed to af fec t 1300 differ ent par cels, seve nteen diff ere nt ty pes of 2 proper ty owned by

over 1000 pr operty

owner s in ten differ ent St. Petersburgneighborhoods. 3pu ni ti ve da m ag es forpro pe rty inju ry co ul d b e ap pr op ria te ly reso lv edin a si ng le cl as s ac ti on , th e Pl ai nt iff

s p res en te d t he affi davi t o f th ei r da m ag es ex pe rt, Dr. J oh n A. Kilp atric k. He s ta te d t ha t h e co ul d d ev el op a he do ni c m ul ti pl e reg res si on
m od el to de te rm in e d im in ut io n- in -v al ue dam ag es witho utres orti ng to an in di vi du al iz edco ns id erat io n o f eac h o f th e v ari ou s p ro pe rti es . Inreb ut ta l, Ra yth eo n p ro du cedit s g ro un dwa te r ex pe rt, Dr. J am es Merc er, ch al le ng in g Dr. Be di en t’s m etho do lo gy for d efi ni ng th e im pa ct edarea , or p ut at iv e cl as s, as “ in co ns is te ntwith app li cab le pro fes si on al st an dard s.” Dr. M erce r te st ifi edals o t ha t Dr. Be di en t’s ar ea en co m pa ss edm an y

pro pe rti es on whi ch no co nt am in at io n h adbe ende te ct edat a ll
. Raythe on in tro du cedit s d am ag es ex pe rt, Dr. Th om as O. Jack so n. Dr. Ja ck so n’s re po rt s ta te d t ha t the Pla in ti ffs ’ ex pe rt’s “ pr op os edm etho d o f an al y si s of pro pe rty val ue di m in ut io n u si ng m as s ap pr ai sa l/reg res si onm od el in g wo ul d b e un acce pt ab le forth is pu rp os e, an d wo ul d n oteli m in at e th e n eedto ev al ua te each pr op erty in th e p ro po se d c la ss areaon anin di vi du al ba si s.” Init s o rd er g ran ti ng cla ss cert ifi cat io n t o P la in ti ffs , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed th at“ [t]he ex pe rt r ep orts , of c ou rs e, di fferm ark ed ly as to th e si ze o f th e p ro po se d cl as s ar ea; whet he r ev id en ce o f co nt am in at io n e xi st s wi th in th atarea ; an d wh ethe r th e al le ge d d im in ut io n i n v al ue to th e p ro pe rti es in th e p ro po se d c la ss areacanbe
4de te rm in edon a cl as s- wid e b as is .”

Yet, l at er i n t he ord er g ran ti ng cla ss cert ifi cat io n, t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d: [Rayth eo n] sp en t a s ig ni fic an t am ou ntof t im e dur in g t he Heari ng at te m pt in g t o p ro ve th atPla in ti ffs ’ ex pe rts an al y se s an d o pi ni on s ar e to o fa ctua ll y

an d s ci en ti fic al ly defi ci en t t o s up po rt c la ss cert ifi cat io n. As a th resh old ma tt er

, th e Co ur t f

in ds th at it is no t n eces sa ryat

th is st ag e o f the li ti ga ti on to de clar e a pr ov er bi al win ne r i n the pa rt ies’ wa r o f the ba tt li ng

exp er ts or

du el in g s ta tist ic s a nd

ch emic al co nc en tr at io ns . . . Th is typ e o f det ermin at io n w ou ld

req ui re th e Co ur t t o w ei

gh th e evi de nc e p rese nt ed an d e ng ag e in a Da ub er t s ty le cr it iq ue of

th e p ro ff er ed exp er ts qu al if

ic at io ns , whi ch wo uld b e in ap pr op ri at e . . . At th is stag e o f the li ti ga ti on , th er ef

or e a n i nq ui ry in to th e a dmiss ib il it

y o f Plai nt if fs ’ pr op os ed

exp er t t es ti mon

y a s s et fo rth i n Da ub er t wo uld b e in ap pr op ri at e, be ca us e su ch an an al ys is de lv es to o f

ar in to th e mer it

s o f Plai nt if fs ’ ca se . (Em ph as is ad de d)
. Rayth eo n app eal s t he cert ifi cat io n o f th e Pl ai nt iff s’ cla ss 3
un de r Fed . R. Civ . Pro c. 23 (f). II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f cl as s ce rti fic at io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Vega , 56 4 F .3dat 1 26 4. In ord er t o e xe rci se th e d is cret io n rep os in g i n t he di stric t co urt, the di st ric t ju dg e m us t d et erm in e th e fac ts m il it at in g in fav orof o r in ap pr op ria te to cla ss tre at m en t. “ A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s di sc ret io n i f itap pl ie s anin co rrec t l eg al st an dard , fol lo ws i m pr op er p ro cedur es in
m ak in g the de te rm in at io n, o r m ak es fin di ng s o f fac t tha t ar e cl earl y erro ne ou s.”
See D aubert v. Me rrell Dow Pharms., Inc. , 113 S. Ct . 2786 (1993). 3 5Id
. III.

A di st ric t co urt m

us t co nduc t a r ig or ou s an al y si s o f th e Ru le 23 pr erequi si te s b efo re ce rti fy in g acla ss . Gen . Tel . Co. v. Fa lc on , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 36 4, 23 72 (19 82 ). “ The bu rd enof p ro of to est ab li sh th e p ro pr ie ty of cl as s ce rti fic at io n res ts with the advo cat e o f th e cl as s.” Val le y Dru g C o. v. Gen eva Pha rms ., Inc
. , 35 0 F .3d11 81 , 11 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ Alt ho ug h t he tri al co urt s ho ul d n otde te rm in e th e m eri ts of t he pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m at t he cla ss cert ifi cat io n s ta ge , th e tr ia l co urt ca n a ndsh ou ldco ns id er the
m eri ts of the cas e to th e d eg ree n eces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er the requi rem en ts of Ru le 23 wil l b e sa ti sf

ie d.” Id . at 1 18 8 n .15 ; se e Co op er s & Lyb ra nd

v. Liv es ay , 98 S. Ct. 2 45 4, 2 45 8 n .12 (“ [t]he cla ss de te rm in at io n g en eral ly inv ol ve s co ns id erat io ns th atare ‘enm es he d i n t he factua l an d l eg al is su es co m pr is in g t he pl ai nt iff’s cau se of a ct io n’ . . . ‘T he m or e co m pl ex de te rm in at io ns requi redin Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) cl as s ac ti on s en ta il ev engre at er en ta ng le m en t wi th th e m eri ts .’ ”) (em ph as is an d c it at io ns om it te d) ; se e Bla de s v. Mo ns an to Co
. , 40 0 F .3d56 2, 5 75 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ) (wh ere app el la nt s ar gu edon ap pe al th at , inrul in g o n c la ss cert ifi cat io n, t he di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y res ol ve d d is pu te s b etweenth e p art ie s’
ex pe rts th atwentto th e m eri ts of t he cas e, th e ap pe al s co urt fo un d t ha t a d is tri ct 6co urt m ay

be requi redto res ol ve ex pe rt d is pu te s i n fa ctua l s etti ng s atth e cl as s cert ifi cat io n s ta ge ). IV. W e co ns id er the Sev en th Cir cu it ’s op in io n i n Ameri ca n Ho nd a Mo to r C

o., In c. , 60 0 F .3d81 3 (7 th Cir . 20 10 ), pe rs ua si ve . The i ss ue be fo re the Sev en th Ci rcu itin Ameri ca n Ho nd a was wh ethe r orno t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e co nc lu si ve ly rule d o n t he adm is si bi li ty (vers us th e wei gh t o f, as in ou r cas e) o f
ex pe rt o pi ni on pri orto cert ifyin g t he cla ss . In Ameri ca n Ho nd

a , th e Sev en th Cir cu itfou ndth at“ whe n a n e xp ert ’s rep ort
ortes ti m on y

is cri ti cal to cla ss cert ifi cat io n, as itis he re . . . , a di stric t co urt m us t
co nc lu si ve ly rule on an y

ch al le ng e to th e ex pe rt’s qua li fic at io ns or s ub m is si on s pr io r to rul in g o n acla ss cert ifi cat io n m ot io n.” Id
. at 8 15 -1 6. Th e Ameri ca n Hon da co urt fo un d t ha t, i f th e si tu at io n warran ts , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t p erfo rm

a fu ll Dau be rt

an al y si s b efo re ce rti fy in g t he cla ss . Id
. at 8 16 . “ A di st ric t co urt i s th e g at ek eep er. Itm

us t d et erm in e th e rel iabi li ty of th e ex pe rt’s e xp eri en ce an d tra in in g a s wel l as th e m etho do lo gy use d. Id. “ The [di st ric t] cou rt m us t al so res ol ve an y

ch al le ng e to th e rel iabi li ty of in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y anex pe rt i f th at in fo rm at io n i s re le va ntto est ab li sh in g a ny of th e Ru le 23 requi rem en ts forcla ss cert ifi cat io n.” Id
. W e ag ree. 7Here, i n i ts Ru le 23 an al y si s, we fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt erredas am at te r

of law b y no t s uf fic ie nt ly eval ua ti ng an d wei gh in g c on fli ct in g e xp erttes ti m on y on cl as s ce rti fic at io n. Id.; Uni te d Hea lthgro up , Inc
. , 37 6 F .3dat 1 09 6. Itwas e rro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d ecl in e to de cl are apro ve rb ia l, y etten ta ti ve win ne r. The Pl ai nt iff s ar e requi redto pro ve , at t he cla ss cert ifi cat io n s ta ge , m or e th anjus t a pr ima fa ci e cas e, i.e. , m or e th anjus t a “ pr et ty goo d c as e.” Se e Val le y Dru g C o. , 35 0 F .3dat 1 18 7. Here t he di stric t co urt re fu se d t o c on du cta Dau be rt -li ke cri ti qu e o f th e pr of fere d e xp ert s’s qua li fic at io ns . This was e rro r. As we h av e n ot ed , a di stric t
co urt m us t m ak e th e n eces sa ry

factua l an d l eg al in qu iri es an d d eci de all rel ev an t
co nt es te d i ss ue s p rio r to cert ifi cat io n. Ameri ca n Ho nd a , 60 0 F .3dat 8 17 . The di st ric t co urt h as no t d et erm in edfact s, fr om th e o fte n c on fli ct in g e vi de nc e, su ffi ci en t t o d et erm in e whe th er cl as s ce rti fic at io n i s o r is no t ap pr op ria te . The
co urt erredin gra nt in g c la ss cert ifi cat io n p rem atur el y . “ Tou gh qu es ti on s m us t b e face d andsqua rel y

de ci de d.” Id
. (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Suc h t ou gh qu es ti on s wer e si de -s te pp edby the di st ric t co urt i n t hi s ca se . Thatwas e rro r. V. W e h av e car efu ll y

rev ie wedth e rec or d i n thi s ca se an d t he arg um en ts of
co un se l. We con cl ud e th at , bas edup on th e rec or d b efo re u s, the re i s n oten ou gh
8ev id en ce t o s up po rt acla ss at t hi s s ta ge of t he li ti ga ti on . The Pl ai nt iff s h av e fai le d to carry th ei r bu rd enof p ro of

. Se e Val le

y Dru g C o. , 35 0 F .3dat 1 18 7. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby notweig hi ng co nf li ct in g ex pe rt t es ti m on y

pre se nt edby both p art ie s atth e cl as s ce rti fic at io n s ta ge . W e va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt o rd er ce rti fy in g acla ss , andrem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . In s o h ol di ng , we exp res s n o o pi ni on as to whet he r cl as s ce rti fic at io n i s o r is no t ap pr op ria te inth is cas e. VACATED andREMANDED for f urth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s op in io n.

9