Opinion ID: 1841244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Class Action Is Superior to Other Procedural Methods

Text: The circumstances shown here clearly favor allowance of a class action. A consideration of the pleadings and the showing in light of the pragmatic factors suggested by Williams and Stevens predominately indicates that a class action is superior to other procedural methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy and the effectuation of substantive law. Effectuating Substantive Law Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action in behalf of a class of some 4000 residents and property owners for personal injuries caused by the emission of noxious odors, fumes and gases from defendant's hazardous waste land farming operation. The essence of the causes of action, which arise under Civil Code articles 667, 668, 669, and perhaps 2315 as an abuse of right, see Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975), is that the defendants conducted activities on their premises which unreasonably inconvenienced and personally injured the members of the class for which the defendants are strictly liable. See Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., supra ; Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 258 La. 1067, 249 So.2d 133 (1971). In assessing the use of a class action in a particular case from the standpoint of effectuating a substantive policy, it may prove helpful for the court to bear in mind two principal ways in which the class action serves this goal: First, to the extent that they open courts to claims not ordinarily litigated, class actions enable courts to enforce policies underlying causes of action in circumstance where those policies might not otherwise be effectuated. Second, to the extent that they enable courts to see the full implications of recognizing rights or remedies, class action procedures assist courts in judging precisely what outcomes of litigation would best serve the policies underlying causes of action. Class action procedures are fair because courts are more likely to see both the significance of the claims of a plaintiff and the consequences of imposing liability upon a defendant, and thus are more likely to arrive at a substantively just conclusion. Through class action procedures, moreover, the interests of absentees, who may be affected by the litigation regardless of its class nature, are given representation in the litigative process, and thus are more likely to be given their due. Developments in the LawClass Actions, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1318, 1353 (1976) (the quoted language outlines the commentators' substantive theory of class actions). On the other hand, a class action in some instances may tend to skew, rather than to implement faithfully, the legislative policy underlying a cause of action. For example, it is arguable that the increased deterrent effect a class action creates may intensify the already heightened deterrent effect of a stiff penalty provision to a point perhaps counterproductive to statutory policies, thereby discouraging legitimate, socially useful activities. See Developments, supra, at 1361. By relating the pertinent circumstances of a case to these ways in which a class action may promote or distort the implementation of substantive law, the court can more effectively evaluate the extent to which this important goal would be advanced or deterred by a class action. The evidence taken at the hearing on defendant's exception to plaintiffs' improper use of a class action indicates that in all likelihood the vast majority of the some 4000 claims asserted are for unreasonable inconvenience and minor, temporary illnesses resulting from inhalation of the odors, fumes and gases emitted by defendants' land farm. Although this fact must be considered in determining the propriety of a class action, our conclusion that most of the claims are relatively small is not intended to preclude any party from later proving a large claim. Nonetheless, since the claims do appear to be small, it is probable that a class action would open the courts to many claims which would not ordinarily be litigated because they could not be prosecuted economically as individual actions. Furthermore, it is probable that in a class action the court is more likely to see the significance of the individual claims of the residents based on defendants' land farm emissions and the consequences of imposing liability upon defendants for the results of their useful and otherwise legal activities. Thus, the court is more likely to arrive at a substantively just conclusion, and the absentees are more likely to be given their due in a class action. The legislative policy underlying these causes of action operates to deter landowners' activities which cause injury and unreasonable inconvenience to others, to cause those who have profited by the activities to disgorge unjust enrichment gained thereby, and to compensate victims injured or unreasonably inconvenienced. If the claims are not asserted in a class action it is evident that many will not be pursued, that the court may not see the true significance of claims or liability, and that the court will therefore be unable to give full realization to the substantive legislative policy. On the other hand, if all claims are successfully enforced in a class action, since recovery by the victims will be limited to the amount required to compensate them fairly, there is little danger in this particular case that the legislative policy will be distorted by an exaggerated deterrent effect. Judicial Efficiency A fundamental objective of the class action device is the achievement of economies of time, effort, and expense. See Advisory Committee Notes, supra, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102-103. Because the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class in this case predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, a class action clearly would promote the goal of judicial efficiency more than other available methods. The single most important issue is whether the defendants' activities on their hazardous waste land farm deprived their neighbors of the liberty of enjoying their own land or caused them unreasonable inconvenience or damage. La.Civil Code arts. 667-669; Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975). Offering the same facts, all class members will strive to establish that the hazardous waste materials placed in the soil by the defendants emitted gases, fumes and odors capable of causing harm and unreasonable inconvenience to persons in the neighborhood. Each class member stands in an identical position with respect to the following issues: (1) whether hazardous waste materials of the quality and quantity capable of causing the damage and unreasonable inconvenience alleged were present at the land farm on the pertinent dates, (2) whether the land farm emitted harmful and malodorous gases on the dates alleged, (3) whether the probable dispersion patterns of the gases and odors emitted include the areas within which the residences of the members of the class are located. The court of appeal concluded that these common issues did not predominate over the potential individual issues of whether each member of the class was harmed or inconvenienced on the same dates or sustained the same amount of injury. Our appellate brethren fell into clear error. From the pleadings and showing it appears that on all of the dates in question the land farm received similar hazardous waste from the same source and that the land farming operations were conducted consistently. Consequently, there exists as to the totality of issues a common nucleus of operative facts such as would justify allowing the class action to proceed. That individuals may have been injured or unreasonably inconvenienced by noxious gases on varying dates by the defendant's land farm operations does not constitute a material variation in the elements of the class members' claims. See 1 H. Newburg, Class Actions, § 1155 (1977); Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94 (10th Cir.1968). 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. Guste, supra, 370 So.2d at 489; Williams, supra, 350 So.2d at 136; Stevens, supra, 309 So.2d at 149; 1 H. Newburg, supra, § 1155(a). The court of appeal also erred in concluding that the defenses which will be urged by defendants will not be generally applicable to the entire class. In fact, the pleadings and the showing suggest that, with respect to the predominant liability issues, there will be no material deviations because such individual defenses as contributory negligence and assumption of risk are wholly inapplicable. See Williams, supra, 350 So.2d at 135. We likewise disagree with the intermediate court as to the manageability of a class action in this case. Although difficulty may be encountered in managing this litigation, it does not outweigh the economies to be derived from unitary adjudication. The location of virtually all the witnesses and members of the class in the same vicinity, as well as identity of the main issues of liability in all claims, will facilitate a prompt, efficient, and relatively inexpensive single trial on the common nucleus of issues. Further, the interested parties appear to be so numerous, 490 having joined as plaintiffs so far, that the courts would be unduly burdened by their separate suits or by their joinder or intervention by formal pleadings in non-class actions separately brought. It cannot be denied that the resolution of class action issues places added responsibilities and burdens on the trial court. But if there is to be an error made, it should be in favor and not against the maintenance of the class action, for it is always subject to modification should later developments during the course of the trial so require. La.C.C.P. art. 593.1(B); Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94 (1968); 1 H. Newburg, supra, § 1160(e). With respect to identification of the members of the class, the trial court erred in denying the class action on the grounds that it would be difficult to identify all of the members of the class. It is not essential that every member of the class be identified before a class action can be certified. Difficulty in identifying the claimants is one of the factors which makes joinder impracticable and a class action appropriate. Verdin v. Thomas, 191 So.2d 646 (La.App. 1st Cir.1966); Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm., 637 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir.1981). To prevent a class action on the grounds that every member of the class cannot be identified would bar the class action where it is usually needed most. See 1 H. Newberg, Class Actions § 1105(h). Therefore, as long as the class itself is reasonably identified, it is not necessary that all the members of the class be identified at the commencement of the action. Ultimately, problems of manageability must be added to any other disadvantages of a class action in a particular case and weighed with them against all of the benefits of unitary adjudication in that case to determine whether a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication. Only if the net benefits of a class action in a particular case are so small in comparison with the net advantages of other adjudicatory methods as to make the class action an inferior method for that case should the court refuse to certify a class. Cf. Pruitt v. Allied Chemical Corp., 85 F.R.D. 100, 115 (Ed.Va.1980). Moreover, in assessing the difficulty of managing a class action in the case at hand, the court must take into account how the problems may be ameliorated by use of the procedural devices at its command. Under La.C.C.P. art. 593.1(C) the court may adopt a plan for the management of the class action subdividing the action and separating the issues for trial. For example, the plan may provide for separate trials of the issues in this order: (1) liability issues, (2) determination of damage items common to the class and the basis for assessment thereof, (3) assessment of common damages on an appropriate basis, (4) determination and assessment of individual damages not common to the class in one or a series of trials involving one or more members of the class. Furthermore, the court may at any time before decision on the merits 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. La.C. C.P. art. 593.1(B). See also Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 75 F.R.D. 34, 38-39 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 722 (N.D.Ca.1967); Manual For Complex Litigation, 1.42-1.44 (West 1982). Fairness to the Parties Another fundamental objective of the class action device is the promotion of uniformity of decision to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results. Advisory Committee Notes, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102-103. In determining whether it would be unfair to require separate adjudications, for instance, the courts should consider the precedential value of the first decision, as well as the extent of injustice that will be produced by inconsistent judgments in separate actions. Another factor to be considered, for example, is the size of the claims of the absent members of the class, for the greater the claim, the greater the interest of its owner in prosecuting it in a separate action. Stevens, supra, 309 So.2d at 151. The plaintiffs allege that approximately 4,000 persons suffered unreasonable inconveniences or injuries arising from the defendants' land farming operations. Despite the prayer of the plaintiffs' petition, the showing indicates that similar if not identical damages, small in nature, were sustained by each. As noted in our discussion of the other goals of procedural law, the evidence as to the nucleus of liability issues must be identical for each claim. Based on these circumstances, we conclude that a class action is clearly the fairest method for adjudication of these claims. Four thousand separate suits involve the danger of inconsistent determinations and of earlier separate adjudications with prejudicial effect upon subsequent separate litigation. Stevens, supra, 309 So.2d at 151; Williams, supra, 350 So.2d at 135. Due to the smallness of the recovery apt to be allowed to each member of the class, no substantial interest adverse to allowing a class action exists in favor of individual control by members of the class of separate action. Williams, supra at 135.