## Facts

- Teresa Boggs and seven other named plaintiffs lived in communities within six miles of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Pike County, Ohio.
- The Portsmouth Plant had processed radioactive materials for the U.S. Department of Energy since the early 1950s and had continuously produced enriched uranium.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, through defendants’ operation of the plant, radioactive materials and non‑radioactive hazardous wastes were unlawfully released into the surrounding environment.
- Plaintiffs alleged exposure occurred through common pathways described in the pleadings as airborne particulates and run‑off water originating from plant operations.
- Plaintiffs sued Divested Atomic Corporation (a former operator and successor to Goodyear Atomic Corporation) and Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. (the operator after November 16, 1986). The pleadings also referenced Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company as Divested Atomic’s parent.
- Plaintiffs sought relief for alleged personal injury and property damage, including emotional distress, diminished real property value, medical monitoring for early detection of cancer, and injunctive relief to stop further unlawful emissions.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23 class of current and former residents, property owners, and lessees within a six‑mile radius of the plant whose proximity allegedly subjected them and their property to the harmful effects of the emissions.
- Defendants opposed certification, arguing Rule 23’s requirements were not met, including concerns about individualized issues of exposure, causation, and damages.
- After briefing, discovery (including depositions), and oral argument, the district court issued an opinion and order addressing only the request for class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class of residents, property owners, and lessees within a six‑mile radius satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements that common questions predominate over individual questions and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
- The court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of persons who live, rent, or own property within a six‑mile radius of the boundaries of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (as defined and limited in the court’s order and related pleadings).
- The court found numerosity satisfied because the six‑mile geographic area included many affected persons, making joinder impracticable.
- The court found commonality satisfied because shared questions existed regarding defendants’ operation of a single facility and the alleged releases of hazardous substances into the surrounding area.
- The court found typicality satisfied because the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same alleged conduct (plant emissions) and the same alleged exposure mechanisms (airborne particulates and run‑off) as the claims of the class, even if damages differed among individuals.
- The court found adequacy satisfied because the named plaintiffs’ interests did not conflict with those of absent class members and counsel was capable of representing the class.
- On Rule 23(b)(3), the court concluded common questions about the alleged emissions and defendants’ conduct predominated over individualized issues, and that class treatment was a better method than many separate suits for resolving the shared liability questions.
- The order addressed certification only and did not decide liability, causation for any individual, or damages.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation; these requirements may be met in environmental contamination cases when plaintiffs identify a defined group affected by the same alleged source and conduct.
- Commonality may exist where class members’ claims turn on shared questions about a defendant’s operation of a single facility and whether that operation resulted in unlawful releases into a surrounding area.
- Typicality is not defeated merely because class members may experience different degrees of exposure or different amounts of damages, so long as the representatives’ claims arise from the same alleged conduct and legal theories.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance can be satisfied when central questions of alleged releases, wrongful conduct, and general causation are common to the class, even though individual issues (such as specific injury, individual causation, and damages) remain for later proceedings.
- Rule 23(b)(3) superiority may favor a class action where proving contamination and related issues would be costly in individual suits and where multiple cases could lead to inconsistent outcomes concerning the same alleged emissions.

## Conclusion

In Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp., the Southern District of Ohio certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of current and former residents, property owners, and lessees within six miles of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, holding that shared questions about the plant’s alleged unlawful emissions and defendants’ conduct justified class treatment despite individualized issues related to exposure and damages.


Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp., 141 F.R.D. 58 (1991)