Case Name: Yvonne ELLIS, et al. v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1989-10-11
Citations: 550 So. 2d 1310
Docket Number: No. 88 CA 1764
Parties: Yvonne ELLIS, et al. v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION.
Judges: Before EDWARDS, LANIER and . FOIL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 550
Pages: 1310–1327

Head Matter:
Yvonne ELLIS, et al. v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION.
No. 88 CA 1764.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Oct. 11, 1989.
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part Oct. 18, 1989.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1989.
Harold M. Wheelan, III, William N. Haz-laris, Bruce A. Cranner, New Orleans, Robert Urann, Metairie, Thomas B. Calvert, New Orleans, Patrick W. Pendley, Plaque-mine and André Guichard, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.
J. Berry St. John, Jr., Robert E. Holden, New Orleans, James P. Dore, Plaquemine, William Craig Wyman, New Orleans and Richard A. Horder, Georgia-Pacific Law Dept., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellants.
Before EDWARDS, LANIER and . FOIL, JJ.

Opinion:
EDWARDS, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court certifying a class action and providing for class notice through electronic and print media.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 17,1981, the plaintiffs instituted this action on their behalf and on the behalf of persons living in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes who were similarly harmed. Plaintiffs seek damages, in the amount of $100.00 for each class member, for economic loss, illness, medical expenses, and/or inconvenience which resulted from an unauthorized discharge of phenol by the defendant, Georgia-Pacific, into the Mississippi River over a period of days in February of 1981. The plaintiffs claim the phenol-contaminated water entered the water systems of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, causing a bad odor and taste in the water and exposing the residents to the phenol. The plaintiffs allege Georgia-Pacific is liable for the damage because of its negligence. They specifically plead the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
After a long delayed process of discovery, a class certification hearing was held on March 14, 1988. In addition to the pleadings and interrogatories, both parties presented briefs and placed in the record depositions of various residents of the two parishes involved. Georgia-Pacific presented testimony by two expert witnesses and introduced into evidence maps and chemical log sheets from the different water treatment plants servicing the two-parish area. Plaintiffs submitted affidavits from representative plaintiffs, experts, and a media consultant, Peter A. Mayer. The Mayer affidavit was submitted to provide information for the judge to consider in choosing a method of notice to the absent plaintiffs. The affidavit attested to the coverage that would be derived from media advertisement. On June 2, 1988, the district court ordered the matter certified as a class action and provided that notice of the pendency of the action be allowed to proceed via the electronic and print media. In response, Georgia-Pacific filed a motion for a new trial or hearing on the terms of class certification. The court ordered plaintiffs to show cause on August 11, 1988, why the court should not grant a new trial.
On August 11, 1988, the court heard further argument on the issue of notice and the problems inherent in certifying such a large class. The motion for a new trial was denied on August 12,1988. Georgia-Pacific appealed suspensively from the court order of June 2, 1988.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In its appeal, the defendant, Georgia-Pacific, asserts that the trial court erred:
1. in certifying the class without supporting evidence;
2. in admitting affidavits as evidence;
3. in certifying a class that did not meet all the prerequisites for a class action; and
4. in ordering notice to the absent class members through media advertisements and by publication.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court is afforded great discretion in class action certification. Wide latitude must be given the trial court in considerations involving policy matters and requiring an analysis of the facts under guidelines helpful to a determination of the appropriateness of a class action. Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe, 510 So.2d 78 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). Unless the trial court has committed manifest error, we must confirm the order. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS ACTION HEARINGS
Defendant assigns error to certification of the class without sufficient proper evidence and to admission of improper hearsay evidence in the form of affidavits.
A review of Articles 591-597 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure governing class actions and prevailing case law reveals no required procedure for a certification hearing. Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 309 So.2d 144, 152 (La.1975) provided that "[w]hen the right to proceed by class action is contested, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion in applying the guidelines may need some showing in addition to the pleadings." As long as the opposing party is given an opportunity to attack and argue against the class certification, the demands of law are met. Livingston Parish Police Jury v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 432 So.2d 1027, 1030 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 437 So.2d 1137 (La.1983).
A review of the record shows the court had sufficient information before it, beyond the pleadings, in the form of briefs, documentary material, testimony introduced by defendants, interrogatories, and depositions, to make an initial determination of the appropriateness of the class action device in this matter.
ADMISSIBILITY OF AFFIDAVITS
Affidavits may be admissible under certain conditions concerning matters collateral to the issues on trial without specific statutory authority. Affidavits may be used in evidence during interlocutory or preliminary proceedings, such as, ex parte proceedings, a temporary restraining order, or a rule to show cause. Affidavits are used when there is a need to expedite the procedure. This is acceptable practice when the opposing party is given the opportunity to refute the affidavit. 2A C.J.S. Affidavits § 57 (1972).
The use of affidavits as a basis for decision is allowed in Louisiana under Code of Civil Procedure articles 966(B) and 967 for summary judgments. No similar article is available in the Code of Civil Procedure for class actions. However, the use of affidavits to support motions for class actions is recognized in the federal system. United National Records, Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 178 (N.D.Ill.1983). See also Fleming v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 707 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1983); 2 Newberg, On Class Actions § 7.26 (2nd ed. 1985).
Defendant specifically assigns error to the Mayer affidavit. The affidavit was submitted by plaintiff to provide information. The defendant had the opportunity at the August 11th hearing to refute the attestations or provide contradictory information.
The two cases cited by defendant precluding use of affidavits as inadmissible hearsay are inapposite. Neither concerned a class certification hearing. In Julius Cohen Jeweler, Inc. v. Succession of Jumonville, 506 So.2d 535 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 511 So.2d 1155 (La.1987), the affidavit was used to prove a fact at issue in the trial. In Board of Commissioners v. Louisiana Commission on Ethics, 416 So.2d 231 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 421 So.2d 248 (La.1982), the affidavit was submitted for use at the trial of a dilatory and a peremptory exception. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's refusal to allow the affidavit. The appellant court relied on Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 930 and 931, which allow evidence to be introduced at the trial of the exceptions. The word "evidence" was interpreted to mean competent legal evidence that would be admissible at trial on the issues. Board of Commissioners, 416 So.2d at 238.
We have no similar statutory guidance before us. However, the Louisiana articles on class actions are based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Without guidance from Louisiana sources, treatises and federal cases can be useful. The Newberg treatise and the federal cases cited above provide support for the use of affidavits in class certification hearings.
The power to provide for notice and collateral matters is exercised by the court. Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131, 138 (La.1977). We find that it was within the discretion of the trial judge to allow the affidavits at a class certification hearing.
PREREQUISITES FOR CLASS ACTIONS
Articles 591 and 592 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure set forth the criteria for a class action. The requirements are:
1. A class so numerous that joinder is impractical;
2. The joinder of parties who are members of the class and able to provide adequate representation for absent members; and
3. A "common character" between the rights of the representatives of the class and the absent class members. Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131, 133 (La.1977); Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 309 So.2d 144, 148 (La.1975); Livingston Parish Police Jury v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 432 So.2d 1027, 1029 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 437 So.2d 1137 (La.1983).
The defendant does not contest the first requirement of impractical joinder. The attack is made on the lack of adequate representation because of atypical claims and the lack of a "common character" between the issues of the representative plaintiffs and the other members of the class.
ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION
The determination of whether the plaintiffs here are situated so that they may fairly insure adequate representation is made by the court. McClure v. A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co., 232 So.2d 879, 883 (La.App. 1st Cir.1970); Verdin v. Thomas, 191 So.2d 646, 650 (La.App. 1st Cir.1966).
Depositions submitted to the court at the certification hearing show that the claims of the named plaintiffs can be generally grouped as follows: (1) medical expenses, (2) economic damage, and (3) inconvenience. The medical expenses are claimed for problems related to the exposure to the phenol. The great majority of the plaintiffs claim economic loss that resulted from the need to buy bottled water or other types of bottled liquids. The plaintiffs were inconvenienced by their inability to use tap water and the need to purchase alternative supplies of water. A reading of the pleadings, briefs, and the depositions of other residents of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes at the time of the discharge does not suggest that these claims are atypical. Instead, the claims emerge as a cross-section of the types of claims asserted throughout the record.
The representative plaintiffs were residents of the two parishes when the phenol spill occurred and are similarly situated to the absent members of the class. The court had facts before it sufficient to make a determination that the named plaintiffs would fairly insure the adequate representation of the absent class members.
COMMON CHARACTER
The criteria for a class action provided by the Code of Civil Procedure Articles 591 and 592 was clarified by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 309 So.2d 144 (La.1975), and later refined by State ex rel. Guste v. General Motors Corp., 370 So.2d 477 (La.1978), and Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131 (La.1977). The most recent enunciation of the analysis to be used, with particular focus on the aspect of "common character," was made in McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services, 456 So.2d 612 (La.1984).
The phrase "common character" encompasses more than the simple existence of questions of law and fact common to the class. "The requirement of a 'common character' restricts the class action to those cases in which it would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 616 (citation omitted). See also Terrebonne Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacombe, 510 So.2d 78, 81 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987).
A review of the record and briefs in this case, using the analysis set forth by McCastle, indicates that a "common character" exists. A mass tort situation is particularly susceptible to inconsistent determinations. The plaintiffs have common rights to assert. The common issues of liability predominate over the individual issues of damages and any individual defenses asserted by defendant to various subclasses of the plaintiffs. The claim that other concerns dumped phenol and that different water treatment plants may have aggravated the problem are common defenses asserted by Georgia-Pacific, not defenses against individual plaintiffs. It would be more efficient and economical to hear the common issues in one trial. Uniformity of decision would obviously result in a class action, and the use of the class action affords the court the opportunity to respond to plaintiffs' claims while being aware of the consequences to the defendant.
"When a 'common character' of rights exists, a class action is superior to other available adjudicatory methods for the purpose of promoting the basic aims and goals of a procedural device: (1) effectuating substantive law; (2) judicial efficiency; and (3) individual fairness." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 616, citing State ex rel. Guste v. General Motors Corp., 370 So.2d 477, 488 (La.1978); Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131, 133-134 (La.1977); Stevens v. Board of Trustees, 309 So.2d 144, 151 (La.1975).
The essence of defendant's complaints is the lack of a common character, a predominance of individual issues, and an unmanageable class. These areas of concern are among the factors listed in Federal Rule 23(b) to be considered by the courts in determining whether the goals of the device are met and, therefore, whether a class action should be maintained. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 617 and n. 1; Williams, 350 So.2d at 134-36; Stevens, 309 So.2d at 148-51.
"[I]f the superiority of a class action is disputed, the trial court must inquire into the aspects of the case and decide whether the intertwined goals of effectuating substantive law, judicial efficiency, and individual fairness would be better served by some other procedural device." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 617.
EFFECTUATING SUBSTANTIVE LAW
In the suit, all damage is claimed to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in causing the unauthorized discharge of phenol into the source of water for the two parishes in February, 1981. The legislative policy underlying a claim of negligence is to protect, in a fair manner, a party from the harm caused by another.
One important aspect of implementing substantive law is to enable plaintiffs to bring actions and courts to enforce policies underlying the law. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 618, quoting Developments in the Law — Class Actions, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1318, 1353 (1976). Without a procedural device, such as a class action, a large group of litigants, estimated here to be one million plaintiffs, with predominately small claims would not be able to pursue effectively an action of the type before us. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 619; Millet v. Rollins Envtl. Servs., 428 So.2d 1075, 1077 (La.App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 433 So.2d 153 (La.1983).
"[C]lass action procedures assist courts in judging precisely what outcomes of litigation would best serve the policies underlying causes of action." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 618, quoting Developments in the Law — Class Actions, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1318, 1353 (1976). However, the court must also guard against a distortion in effectuating the substantive law or an unfair result caused by the inappropriate maintenance of a class action. A class action not properly defined or delineated would impede rather than implement the law. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 619.
The court in a class action has the ability to see the overall importance of plaintiffs' moderate claims and the possible consequences to Georgia-Pacific.
JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY
The second inquiry focuses on judicial efficiency. "A fundamental objective of the class action device is the achievement of economies of time, effort, and expense." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 619 (citation omitted).
The defendant claims that no common character exists in the suit. Defendant points to a need to cross-examine each plaintiff in order to assess individual types of damage. Defendant argues that individual questions exist as to each plaintiff concerning whether the contaminated water actually reached him and whether each plaintiff used the water. The defendant also highlights the problems of locating, identifying, and managing such a large amorphous class. A class action under these circumstances, as related by defendant, could impede an efficient, economic trial.
We feel the defendant's concerns are not well founded and not sufficient, under the facts, to defeat the initial finding by the trial court that the class should be certified.
There is more here than just common questions of fact and law. The plaintiffs all have a common interest in pursuing and advancing the suit. The most important issues of liability are common to all the plaintiffs who were residents of the two parishes and harmed as a result of the phenol discharge. The common issues are:
1. whether the phenol discharged by Georgia-Pacific did enter the water systems;
2. whether the phenol content of the water was of sufficient concentration to cause an odor and taste problem;
3. whether Georgia-Pacific had a legal duty to warn plaintiffs of the discharge;
4. whether Georgia-Pacific had a legal duty to anticipate such a risk and provide precautions against a need for a discharge; and
5. whether punitive damages against Georgia-Pacific for the discharge should be assessed under the facts and applicable law.
The facts here are analogous to the facts present in McCastle and Millet. The suit concerns an environmental hazard which allegedly harmed and caused inconvenience to the residents. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 615; Millet, 428 So.2d at 1075-76. The individual issues delineated by defendant rest primarily on differences in the proof of damages. Again, the differences in McCastle and Millet parallel the differences in the case before us. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 620; Millet, 428 So.2d at 1078. In McCastle, the court stated that the fact "[t]hat individuals may have been injured or unreasonably inconvenienced . on varying dates by defendant's . operations does not constitute a material variation in the elements of the class members' claims. With respect to the question of damages, individual questions of quantum do not preclude a class action when predominant liability issues are common to the class." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 620 (citation omitted). Here, as in Millet, the issues of defendant's duty and possible liability predominate over any individual issues previously raised by defendant. Millet, 428 So.2d at 1078.
To have a manageable class, it is not necessary that all members be identified before certification if the class can be reasonably defined. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 620. The court must do a careful analysis and not be swayed merely by numbers. The problems of a large class are the very reasons joinder becomes impossible. "Although difficulty may be encountered in managing this litigation, it does not outweigh the economies to be derived from unitary adjudication." McCastle, 456 So.2d at 620.
Article 593.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to respond to the problems of management. It is within the discretion of the trial court to devise and adopt a management plan. Problems that arise in a large class can be alleviated with a good plan. If the court determines at any time that the problems outweigh the advantages of the class action, or that the suit does lack the prerequisites for a class action, and that another procedural device might be superior, the class can be modified or certification recalled. Because of this ability of the court to review constantly its certification, if an error is to be made "it should be in favor and not against the maintenance of the class_" McCastle, 456 So.2d at 620.
FAIRNESS TO PARTIES
The last consideration is whether the decision in the class action would be fair to the parties. The court must guard against inconsistent holdings to . similarly placed persons without sacrificing overall fairness. McCastle, 456 So.2d at 621.
The plaintiffs' claims are based on a recognition of a large number of common issues. The record discloses no pending separate suits by individual plaintiffs. The possible individual claims for recompense are not so great as to compel several plaintiffs to prosecute in separate suits. Because inconsistent decisions, under these facts, by different courts would result in grave injustice, a class action appears to be the best procedural device to promote fairness.
An analysis of the record before this court under the guidelines of McCastle provides a reasonable basis for the finding of the trial court. We cannot say the trial court committed manifest error in its decision to certify the class.
NOTICE
The class action articles in the Code of Civil Procedure are silent on the issue of notice. The court is guided in its decision on notice by the Louisiana jurisprudence and federal and state due process requirements. Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131, 137-38 (La.1977). When notice is necessary, due process requires that the notice be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Williams, 350 So.2d at 138, quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). It is important that plaintiffs be given the option to retire from the class action. Williams, 350 So.2d at 137. Under Code of Civil Procedure article 597, a judgment rendered on the merits "concludes all members of the class.... " Notice at an early stage of the proceedings is preferable. Williams, 350 So.2d at 137.
The court in Williams noted that for large individual claims, the court may require that individual written notice be given to identifiable members of the class. Williams, 350 So.2d at 138. However, notice by publication was deemed sufficient if it would reasonably apprise those interested in the action. Williams, 350 So.2d at 138. "In determining the manner and form of the notice to be given, the court shall consider the interests of the class, the relief requested, the cost of notifying the members of the class, and the possible prejudice to members who do not receive notice." Williams, 350 So.2d at 139, n. 12, quoting Section 7(c), Uniform Class Actions Act.
The defendant asserts the claims are of a magnitude that require individual notice. However, the magnitude perceived by the defendant appears to be from a consideration of the total award in relation to the cost to the defendant. The record provides no showing that the individual claims are so large as to require individual notice.
Both sides had the opportunity to argue for and against media notice with consideration given to the cost of different types of notice, the ability of the notice to reach the class members, and the problems of locating and identifying class members seven to eight years after the incident. The trial judge at the August 11th hearing agreed that both parties should be consulted concerning the form of the advertisements. The court had sufficient information before it to make a decision on a method of notice "reasonably calculated" to reach the class members.
At this time we cannot say the trial court's order for notice by publication and through television and radio advertisements to absent members at the onset of the action, thereby providing an opportunity to opt out of the action, was manifestly erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial judge certifying the class and allowing for notice to the members is affirmed at the appellant's cost, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this ruling.
AFFIRMED.
LANIER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.
. In addition to appealing the district court's order of June 2, 1988, Georgia-Pacific applied to this court for supervisory writs. Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss both the appeal and the writ application as untimely. On November 2, 1988, this court denied the writ and noted .that the defendant's proper remedy would be by appeal. By memorandum ruling of the same date, numbered CM 88 1444, this court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff then applied for supervisory writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court on the issue of untimeliness. The writ was denied in Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific, Inc., 536 So.2d 1217 (La.1989) on January 13, 1989.
. The use of affidavits is also authorized by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1702, covering confirmation of default judgments, and article 3609, covering preliminary injunctions.
. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) provides:
(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
(3)the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of the members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in their particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Similar facts are listed in the Uniform Class Actions Act; Section 3(a) (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1976)) cited in McCastle, 456 So.2d at 617 n. 2.
. LSA-C.C.P. art. 593.1 provides:
A. After commencement of an action by or on behalf of parties alleged to be members of a class, the court, on its own motion, or on the motion of any party or on trial of any exception directed to such issue, shall determine whether the action may be properly maintained as a class action as a prerequisite to any further proceedings therein. If the court finds that the action should be maintained as a class action, it shall certify the action accordingly; otherwise the action shall be dismissed. The court may permit amendment of the pleadings in the action to permit maintenance thereof as an ordinary proceeding on behalf of parties expressly named therein.
B. In the process of class certification or at any time thereafter before decision on the merits, the court may alter, amend or recall its certification and may enlarge, restrict, or otherwise redefine the constituency of the class or the issues to be maintained in the class action.
C. After determining that the pending action is appropriate for litigation as a class action, the court may, on its own motion or on the motion or recommendation of any party, adopt a plan for the management of the class action litigation, which may include provisions for subdivision of the action or separation of the issues therein raised, to which these rules of procedure shall be applicable as though each were a separate action. The management plan may provide for separate trials of separate issues and, if jury trial has been requested and is otherwise permissible, each separate trial may be heard before the same or another jury as the court may direct in the interest of justice. The management plan may provide for separate trials of the following issues in the order herein set forth:
(1) Liability for all damages.
(2) Determination of any item of damage common to the class and the basis for assessment thereof.
(3) Assessment of common damages on the basis determined in (2) above or on such basis as may be appropriate in the absence of any prior determination of the basis thereof.
(4) Determination and assessment of individual damages not common to the class, either in one trial or in a series of trials involving one or more members of the class.
D.The court may sign a judgment after trial of any separate issue or it may, in the interest of justice, withhold the signing of a judgment on any issue until all issues have been adjudicated. In no event shall the court sign any judgment awarding damages unless and until a judgment has been previously signed adjudicating all liability issues.