2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-22-2009 

# Fi shb ein F ami l

y v . PPG Ind Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3628

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F i shbein F ami ly v

. PPG Ind Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2004. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/20041 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3628 TH E FI SH BE I N FA M I LY PA RT N ER SH I P, A ppel l ant v. P P G IN D U S T R IE S IN C ; W A T E R S , M C P H E R S O N & M C N E IL L , P .C .;

W I LLI AM J . W AR D, ESQ. ; J OH N P. BEY EL; M CE LR O Y , D EU TSC H & M U LV A N EY ; BU D D LA RN ER G RO SS RO SEN BA U M G RE EN BE RG & SA D E, P. C. ; A BC LA W FI RM S; D E F L A W FI R M ; X Y Z L A W FI R M S 1- 10; A T T O R N E Y J O H N D O E S 1- 10

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C i v. N o. 93- cv- 00653) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. D enni s M . C avana ugh Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember11, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges . ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary22, 2009)

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge. T h e F ishb ein F am il yP artne rship (“F F P ”) a p p ea ls an o rde r of the d istri ct co u rt gr a nt i ng s umm a r yj ud gmen ti n f a vo rof va r i ou s a t t orne y s a nd l a w fi r ms a nd a ga i ns tFFP o n th e l e g a l ma l p r a c t i c e c l a i ms F F P f i l e d a g a i n s tth e m. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we2

wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e w i l l onl yr eci t e the fa ct s and pr oc e du r a l hi s t oryne c e s s a r yt o o urr e s ol ut i on . FFP f i l e d thi s a c t i on a ga i ns tPPG I ndus tr i es , I nc. i n 1993. T he r el i ef FFP soughti ncl uded damages forPPG ’ s al l eged f a ilu re to d isc lo se in f

o rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e p re se n c e o f c h ro m iu m re sid u e a t a p ro p e rty pur chas ed byFFP fr om PPG i n 1964, damages forthe l os s of t enant s atthe pr opertyand forcos t s i ncurr ed i n t he envi r onm ent al cl ean- up of the s i t e. T he or i gi nal compl ai nt as s ert ed ca us es of ac t i on underthe C om pr ehens i ve Envi r onm ent al R es pons e, C om pens at i on and Li abi l i tyA ct( “C E R C L A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 9601 et s eq . , and the N ew J er s eySpi l l C om pens at i on and C ontr ol A ct( the “Spi l l A ct ”) , N . J . S. A . 58: 10- 23. 11 et s eq. , a s w e ll a s a n u m b e r o f s ta te c o m m o n la w c la im s . P P G m o v ed to d ism iss FF P ’s st ate c o m m o n law claim s arg u ing that theyw ere o u t s i d e o f

Ne w J e r s e y ’ s s i x - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rp r o p e r tyd a ma g e s , N. J . S . A. 2A : 14- 1. T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed that , pur s uantt o N ew J er s ey ’ s di s coveryrul e i tw as

“ u n d isp u ted . . . tha t F F P ’s c a u se s o f a c tio n a c c ru e d a t th e late st b yA p ril o r M a y1 9 8 5 , if notear l i er . ” The F is hbei n Fam i l y Partners hi

p v. PP G I

ndus tr i es , I

nc. , N o . 0 3 -6 5 3 , slip op . a t8 ( D . N . J . M a r . 7, 19 96 ) . I tc on c l ud e d tha t“ i tc ou l d h a r dl ybe mor e c l e a rtha tFFP – as s ucce s s ort o C l i f/ L aw r ence – knew ors houl d have know n of i t s caus es of ac t i onL aw r ence C ons truct i on C om panyand C l i f A s s oci at es w er e ow ned bym ember s of 1 th e F ish b e in f

a m ily , inc lu d in g F re d F ish b e in , h is w if e , C laire , h is s o n L a w re n c e a n d h is d a u g h te r I ri s . T h e s e e n titie s w e re th e c o rp o ra te p re d e c e s s o rs to F F P . 3 a g a in s t P P G lo n g b e f

o re F e b ru a ry 1 9 8 7 .” Id . at9. H ow ever , the di s tr i ctcourtnever 1 det erm i ned exa ct l yw hen FFP knew ors houl d have know n of i t s pot ent i al comm on l aw c l a i m s a g a i n s tP P G r e l a t i n g t o th e p r o p e r ty. O n J ul y3, 1997, FFP fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntas s ert i ng l egal m al pr act i ce c laim s a g a in st v a rio u s a tto rn e y s a n d law f irm s th a t h a d re p re se n ted it o v e r th e y e a rs in connec t i on w i th t he pr operty . FFP cl ai m ed thati tl os ti t s r i ghtt o pur s ue PPG fordamages o n its c o m m o n law c laim s b e c a u se its a tto rn e y s h a d f a iled to in stitu te s u it o n its b e h a lf d u ri n g th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p e ri o d . Th e r e a f t e r , F F P a n d P P G e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n s e n to r d e rp r o v i d i n g th a t“ a l l c l a i ms a ss e rte d b yP lain tiff

a g a in st D e f

e n d a n t in th e a b o v e -c a p tio n e d a c tio n a n d a ll co u n terclai m s ass erted b yD ef en d an t aga inst P lai n ti ff in the ab o v e-ref

ere n ce d ac ti o n are her ebydi s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. ” I n J une 2007, the var i ous att orney s and l aw fi r m s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton the g round that the si x-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s on F F P ’s com m on l aw cl ai m s agai nst PPG had al r eadyexpi r ed bythe t i m e theyw er e r et ai ned t o r epr es entFFP . O n A ugus t30, 2007, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons . 2007 W L 2509811 ( D . N . J . A ug. 30, 2007) . I tfound thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run befor e anyof the a t t o rn e y s a n d l a w f

i r ms we r e h i r e d b yF F P , a n d , th e r e f o r e , th e a t t o rn e y s a n d l a w f i r msO u r r e v ie w o f th e g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. McG ow en v. N JR Serv . 2 C or p. , 423 F. 3d 241, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e appl ythe s ame st andar d thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt a p p lie d . Id . S um m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e “i f t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, a n s w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , a n d a d m i s s i o n s o n f i l e , t o g e th e rw i th th e a f f i d a v i t s , i f

a n y, sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d .R .C iv .P 5 6 (c ).

4 c a n n o t b e h e ld lia b le f

o r m a lp ra c tic e . Id . at * 3 . F F P th e n f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. 2 II. I n N ew J er s ey , “[t ] he el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on forl egal m al pr act i ce a r e ( 1) t he exi s t ence of an a t t orney - cl i entr el at i ons hi p cr eat i ng a dutyof ca r e bythe def endant a tto rn e y ; (2 ) th e b re a c h o f th a t d u tyb yth e d e f

e n d a n t atto rn e y , an d (3 ) p ro x im a te caus at i on of the damages cl ai m ed bythe pl ai nt i ff. ” Mc G ro g a n v . T ill , 771 A . 2d 1187, 1 1 9 3 (N .J . 2 0 0 1 ). “O r di nar i l y , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons foran ac t i on begi ns t o run w hen al l the el ement s of the ca us e of a ct i on ar e pr es ent , or , m or e pl ai nl y , ‘ fr om the mom entof the w r ong. ’ ” A mla n d

P r o p e r t i e s v . A l u mi n u m C o . o f A m. , 80 8 F . S up p. 11 87 , 11 90 (D . N . J. 1992) ( quot i ng Lopezv. Sw yer , 3 0 0 A . 2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 6 (N . J. 1 9 7 3 )). U n d er N ew Jerse y ’s di s coveryrul e, how ever , a ca us e of a ct i on does notacc rue “unt i l the pl ai nt i ff l earns , or r eas onabl ys houl d l earn, the exi s t ence of a s t at e of f act s w hi ch mayequat e i n l aw w i t h a caus e of a ct i on. ” V

is pi ano v. A s hland C hem . C o. , 527 A . 2d 66, 71 ( N . J . 1987) ( quot i ng B ur d v. N

. J. Tel . C o. , 3 8 6 A .2 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 4 (N .J . 1 9 7 8 )) . H e re , it is u n d is p u te d th a t C lif /L a w re n c e , F F P ’s p re d e c e s s o rs , s ee n .1 , supra , knew5

byno l at erthan Sept ember1973, w hen the H el l erL abs Foundat i on R eportw as i s s ued, th a t th e p re se n c e o f

c h ro m iu m in th e f

ill m a ter ial a t th e p ro p e rtyp u rc h a se d f ro m P P G in 1 9 6 4 w a s c a u sin g d a m a g e to th e f o u n d a tio n s o f

its b u ild in g s. H o w e v e r, d u rin g th e six y e a rp e r i o d f

r o m 1 9 7 3 th r o u g h 1 9 7 9 , F F P ’ s p r e d e c e s s o r s t o o k n o a c t i o n t o p u r s u e c l a i ms a g a in st P P G re latin g to th e c o n tam in a tio n o f th e so il at th e p ro p e rty . In a d d iti o n , itis undi s put ed thatatno t i m e dur i ng the s i x y earper i od fr om 1973 t o 1979 di d anyof the v a rio u s a tto rn e y s a n d law f irm s n a m e d in th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t re p re se n t F F P o r its pr edec es s or s . T her efor e, none of the att orney s and l aw fi r m s can be hel d r es pons i bl e for m i ssi ng the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. FFP cont ends thatthe 1973 H el l erL abs R eportcoul d nottr i ggerthe runni ng of the l i m i t at i ons per i od on cl ai m s agai ns tPPG beca us e FFP di d nothave a ctual know l edge of the hea l th danger s of hexa val entchr om i um unt i l 1983. FFP fur thercont ends thati thi r ed the fi r s tof the var i ous att orney s and l aw fi r m s thats ame y ear . M or ever , FFP not es t hat th e c o m p la in t a g a in s t P P G w a s n o t f ile d u n til 1 9 9 3 , p a s t th e s ix -ye a r l im ita tio n s p e ri o d . T her efor e, acc or di ng t o FFP , the att orney s and l aw fi r m s w er e negl i gentbynotfi l i ng t he c o m p la in t w ith in th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d . H ow ever , underN ew J er s ey ’ s di s coveryrul e, “i n an appr opr i at e ca s e a c aus e of ac ti o n w il l be h eld n o t t o ac cru e u n ti l th e inju red p artyd isco v ers, or by an ex er cis e of r eas onabl e di l igence and i nt el l igence s hould have dis cove r ed thathe mayhave a bas i s for an ac t i onabl e cl ai m . ” Lopezv. Sw yer , 3 0 0 A .2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 5 (N .J .1 9 7 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).6

H e re , the H e ller L a b R e p o rt w a s a su f f icie n t in d ica tio n o f

e n v iro n m e n tal c o n tam in a tio n to putFFP ’ s pr edec es s or s on not i ce of the nee d t o i nves t i gat e al l cl ai m s theym i ghthave agai ns tPPG ar i s i ng outof the cont ami nat ed fi l l m at er i al . FFP cannotw ai tunt i l i tobt ai ns actual know l edge of

harm ; y et , thati s exac t l yw hatFFP di d.

III . F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e d istric t co u rt.