Preview:

03/09/2012 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-C-2793 KIETA ALEXANDER, ET AL. VS. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, ET AL.

PER CURIAM
Defendants seek review of a judgment certifying this matter as a class action. For the reasons that follow, we grant defendants' writ and reverse the judgment of certification. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter arises out of a chemical spill from a railroad tank car which occurred on September 18, 2001 in the City of New Orleans. The New Orleans

Fire Department investigated and determined ethyl acrylic fumes were leaking from valves on two railroad cars that had been parked for less than an hour while waiting for another train. The fire department tightened the valves, and the trains were permitted to leave. No evacuation was called. Approximately twenty people were treated and released at the scene for exposure to the chemical, and hundreds of others complained about eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritations, as well as a noxious smell.
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed the instant class action suit against several

railroad and chemical companies. After a hearing, the district court granted certification. The court of appeal affirmed the district court's judgment in an opinion not designated for publication. Defendants now seek review of that ruling.

DISCUSSION La. Code Civ. P. art. 591 (A) sets forth several requirements for establishing a class action, namely numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of the representative, and objectively definable class. Additionally, La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(B)(3) provides "[t]he court [must find] 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." We have explained that "the predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it `entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class,' a process that ultimately `prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.' " Dupree v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 09-2602 (La. 11/30/10), 51 So. 3d 673 (quoting Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co., 08-2035, p. 19 (La. 5/22/09), 13 So. 3d 546, 560). Recently, in Price v. Martin, 11-0853, p. 10 (La. 12/6/11), __ So. 3d __, we held that in order for a case to proceed as a class action, "there must be `significant proof,' subject to `rigorous analysis,' of a common question

Download 2011-C-2793 KIETA ALEXANDER, RONALD CLAYTON, SR. AND GLORIA TRAVIS v. NORFOLK SO

Louisiana Law