Court Opinion

ID: 9963240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 20:00:58.415073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.889675
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13024   Document: 66-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13024
                         ____________________

       RICHARD COTROMANO,
       BETHANY COTROMANO,
       FRANK DECARLO,
       PAULETTE DECARLO,
       GREGORY DUNSFORD, et al.,
                                                  Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       BILL FEATHERSTON, et al.,
                                                             Plaintiﬀs,
       JOSEPH ADINOLFE, et al.,
                                                      Consol Plaintiﬀs,
       versus
USCA11 Case: 22-13024    Document: 66-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court               22-13024

       UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT AND
       WHITNEY GROUP, et al.,

                                                            Defendants,

       RTX CORPORATION, d/b/a PRATT & WHITNEY,

                                                    Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80928-KAM
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal concerns one of many toxic tort cases stemming
       from a property known as “The Acreage” in Palm Beach County,
       Florida. Defendant-Appellee Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
       d/b/a Pratt & Whitney (P&W) operates an industrial facility five
       miles north of The Acreage. Plaintiffs-Appellants include various
       property owners who reside in The Acreage. In 2009, the Florida
       Department of Health (FDOH) declared a cancer cluster in The
       Acreage. After these findings received attention from news outlets
USCA11 Case: 22-13024      Document: 66-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       22-13024               Opinion of the Court                         3

       and realtor associations alike, Plaintiffs-Appellants sued P&W and
       sought compensation for diminution of property value resulting
       from stigmatization. Plaintiffs-Appellants alleged that P&W’s im-
       proper remediation and disposal of radioactive materials caused
       the cancer cluster, and the resulting designation by the FDOH uni-
       formly stigmatized The Acreage.
             On appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants argue the following:
                I.   The district court abused its discretion in excluding
                     the testimony of various experts put forward by Plain-
                     tiffs-Appellants.
               II.   The district court abused its discretion in allowing
                     certain P&W expert testimony.
              III.   The district court abused its discretion in its phrasing
                     of special jury interrogatories.
              IV.    The district court abused its discretion in denying
                     class certification.
       After careful review of the briefs and record, and with the benefit
       of oral argument, we find no reversible error.
              Beginning with the expert testimony challenges, the record
       demonstrates that the district court conducted a comprehensive
       two-day hearing to address the various motions under Daubert v.
       Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Our review
       of the record demonstrates that the district court acted well within
       the “considerable leeway” we afford trial courts’ expert testimony
       decisions—whether in excluding the testimony of Brian Moore,
USCA11 Case: 22-13024      Document: 66-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13024

       Bernd Franke, and Dr. William Sawyer, along with permitting the
       testimony of Dr. Duane Mitchell. See Chapman v. Procter & Gamble
       Distrib., LLC, 766 F.3d 1296, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation
       marks omitted). Given the district court’s thorough familiarity
       with the case’s evidentiary circumstances, we see no reason to dis-
       turb its expert testimony rulings.
              Nor do we find reversible error as to either the special inter-
       rogatories or class certification. A review of the record demon-
       strates that the district court methodically handled the parties’ ob-
       jections, and the final verdict form and instructions, taken together,
       comport with both Florida law and this case’s factual posture. See
       Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.
       1999); Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991)
       (per curiam). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in
       its phrasing of the special interrogatories. And because Plaintiffs-
       Appellants’ other challenges fail, we need not reach the merits of
       the class certification claim. See Williams v. Wallis, 734 F.2d 1434,
       1441 (11th Cir. 1984).
               Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned decisions by the
       district court.
             AFFIRMED.