Opinion ID: 1651275
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegations of Class Action Status and Supporting Record

Text: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification consisted of a single page, with one substantive paragraph stating that this action is proper for certification as a class action on all issues for the reasons set forth in plaintiffs' Third Amended Petition attached hereto as Exhibit A and the affidavits attached hereto as exhibits B through F. The four-page petition alleges that the named plaintiffs live near Weber's quarry and that they experience vibrations constituting a nuisance caused by the quarry's blasting operations. It also includes stock allegations that the action meets the Rule 52.08(a) prerequisites for class certification, i.e.: the number of property owners is so numerous that joinder is impractical; the class would be adequately represented by the named plaintiffs; the named plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class, and each class member's claim presents two common issues of fact: whether the defendants maintained a nuisance and whether the member sustained at least nominal damages. The petition also paraphrases Rule 52.08(b)(1) and alleges that a class should be certified because the prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the class and the defense of separate actions against the individual members of the class would create a strong risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications of the common questions of law and fact. Facts supporting these allegations are not set out in the petition itself. The class certification motion also refers to five supporting affidavits, one from each of the named plaintiffs. These plaintiffs aver that they live within one-quarter to one-third mile of the quarry and that they felt vibrations from the blasting at the quarry and were injured thereby. [3] Based on the motion, petition, and accompanying affidavits, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, two witnesses testified: the lead plaintiff, Peggy Green, [4] and David Knieriem, one of the attorneys for the putative class.
Ms. Green first noticed the blasting activity in October 1999, and her neighbors informed her that the blasting originated in Weber's quarry. According to Ms. Green, the number of blasts ranged between five and ten per week. After becoming aware of the blasting, Ms. Green began to canvass the neighborhood to learn whether others were similarly affected by the blasting. She called two meetings, one in her subdivision, which has approximately 410 homes, and one in another subdivision, with approximately 300 homes, to address the issues associated with the blasting. Ms. Green also attended meetings of the O'Fallon city council and the St. Charles county commission to raise concerns regarding the blasting. She testified that she spoke to hundreds of individuals in the community regarding this blasting. At the time of the hearing, however, Ms. Green had moved from her home in the subdivision to another residence much farther from the quarry. Although she believed that her new home was within a two-mile radius of the quarry, she stated that she did not feel any vibrations in her new home and that her claimed class membership derives from her prior residence, which was within one-quarter mile of the quarry. Ms. Green did not suggest that she had obtained any scientific or statistical evidence or geographic survey as to how far the vibrations would travel in the varying ground conditions surrounding the quarry. Nor did Ms. Green attempt to determine how far in each direction the vibrations traveled by conducting a survey of residents within set distances from the quarry. Rather, she explained, the class definition was offered as those who owned homes within a two-mile radius of the quarry because she had received telephone calls from people to the north and east of the quarry who said they felt vibrations. Ms. Green spoke to one person who lived about two miles away in an unspecified direction. She also said that Fizey Road, a thoroughfare in the community, was approximately 2 miles from the quarry. During cross-examination, Ms. Green agreed that she did not have any personal information regarding whether the blast could be felt at two miles distance, nor did she identify anyone who lives at that distance who was affected by the blasting.
David Knierem, one of the counsel for the proposed class, testified that he personally attended some meetings called to address blasting issues in the community. The meetings he attended had over 150 persons present. Based on Mr. Knierem's understanding of the community, he testified that the class would include approximately 1500 homeowners. [5] Counsel also, over objection, offered the affidavit of a person who averred that he lives 1.6 miles in an unspecified direction from the quarry and that he had suffered damage from vibrations.
Following the hearing, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Although the plaintiffs sought and the defendant opposed  class certification only under Rule 52.08(b)(1), the trial court did not certify the class under that provision. The trial court noted that if the plaintiffs' allegations that their claims would be subject to inconsistent or varying adjudications were true, this would satisfy Rule 52.08(b)(1). But it did not address whether plaintiffs had met their burden of proof, and indeed, no evidence or even supporting argument was made below on this issue. Instead, the trial court determined that, [a] fair reading of the petition also supports application of subsection [52.08(b)](3). [6] Although the court said that it did not consider any of the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, it nonetheless found that two common issues  the reasonableness of Weber's blasting and whether the blasting substantially impaired the plaintiff class members' right to peaceful enjoyment of their property  predominated, making a class action superior to other methods of adjudication. The class as certified below consists of residential homeowners . . . who owned homes within two miles of Defendant's quarry . . . for the five years preceding the date the petition was filed. Weber sought and received permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's class certification order pursuant to section 512.020(3), RSMo Supp.2007. After decision by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.