## Facts

- Louisville Gas & Electric Co. operated a coal-fired power plant near plaintiffs’ homes in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
- More than 70 residential property owners and occupants sued, asserting tort claims (including nuisance, trespass, and negligence) based on alleged migration of odors, pollutants, fallout, or contaminants onto their properties.
- Plaintiffs alleged residue, offensive smells, diminished property values, and interference with use and enjoyment of their homes.
- Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of owners or residents of single-family homes within two miles of the facility, from May 2003 forward, whose property was damaged by odors, pollutants, fallout, or contaminants originating from the facility.
- Plaintiffs estimated the proposed class could include approximately 14,000 residents.
- Defendant opposed certification, challenging the class definition and arguing that individualized issues would control.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class was defined in an objective, administratively workable way, or instead required determining merits (damage and causation) to identify class membership.
2. Whether plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements, particularly commonality, typicality, and adequacy, given variations in exposure and harm among properties.
3. Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority were met where proof of exposure, causation, and damages would vary property-by-property.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for class certification.
- The court found the proposed class definition defective because membership turned on whether a person’s property was damaged by emissions from the facility, requiring individualized merits determinations to ascertain the class.
- The court concluded that individualized issues—especially exposure, source attribution, causation, and damages—predominated over common questions, defeating Rule 23(b)(3).
- The court also held that a class action was not a superior method of adjudication because it would require extensive individualized proceedings and would be difficult to manage fairly and efficiently.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification requires a rigorous analysis of Rule 23’s requirements.
- A proposed class must be defined using objective criteria that allow membership to be determined without resolving central merits questions.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance is not satisfied where liability and damages depend on individualized proof of exposure, causation, and the nature and extent of harm.
- Superiority may be lacking when a class trial would devolve into numerous individualized determinations, undermining efficiency and manageability.

## Conclusion

The court refused to certify a broad residential class asserting emissions-related property harms because the class definition depended on proving damage caused by the defendant and because individualized issues of exposure, causation, and damages outweighed any common questions, making Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority unsatisfied.


Burkhead v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 250 F.R.D. 287 (W.D. Ky. 2008)