Opinion ID: 1651275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Class Certification Order

Text: 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.