## Facts

- Property owners and residents living near the Lone Pine Landfill alleged toxic pollution contaminated surrounding air and water.
- Plaintiffs claimed personal injuries (including allergies and skin rashes) and property damage (including diminished property values).
- The action named the landfill operator and roughly 463–464 additional defendants alleged to have generated and/or hauled toxic materials disposed at the landfill.
- The complaint advanced generalized allegations across many plaintiffs and defendants, without individualized proof of exposure, injury, or causation.
- Concerned that no prima facie claim appeared on the face of the pleadings, the court entered a case-management order requiring individualized submissions for each plaintiff.
- The order required: (1) specific facts showing each plaintiff’s exposure to substances from the landfill; (2) treating-physician and/or expert reports supporting each plaintiff’s injury and medical causation; and (3) competent proof supporting alleged property-value diminution.
- Plaintiffs were given months to comply, including an extension of the compliance deadline.
- Plaintiffs’ submissions did not include medical records or physician reports connecting alleged injuries to landfill-related substances.
- Plaintiffs’ property-value showing relied on a realtor’s report that did not include property inspections or comparative market analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether a court managing a complex toxic-tort action may require plaintiffs to produce early, individualized prima facie evidence of exposure, injury, and causation.
2. Whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted when plaintiffs, after extensions, fail to comply with such case-management requirements and still cannot support essential elements of their claims.
3. Whether maintaining the action without an adequate factual basis violates New Jersey’s good-faith pleading rule (R. 1:4-8), supporting dismissal.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The court found plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of personal injury or property damage.
- The court found plaintiffs did not comply with the prior case-management order requiring individualized proofs of exposure, injury, causation, and property-value loss.
- The court found the action lacked good grounds and violated N.J. Ct. R. 1:4-8.
- The court concluded the complaint failed to plead a claim upon which relief could be granted given the absence of the ordered foundational proof.

## Legal Principles

- In complex toxic-tort litigation, trial courts may use case-management authority to require plaintiffs to produce early, plaintiff-specific evidence supporting essential elements, including exposure, injury, and causation.
- When plaintiffs fail to provide competent medical or expert support for causation after being ordered to do so, the court may treat the action as lacking a prima facie basis.
- Generalized allegations and unreliable, non-comparative property-value assertions may be insufficient to support property-damage claims requiring proof of diminution.
- A court may dismiss with prejudice where plaintiffs, after notice and an opportunity to comply, fail to provide ordered prima facie support and the action is determined to lack good-faith factual grounding under N.J. Ct. R. 1:4-8.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a mass toxic-tort and property-damage action with prejudice after plaintiffs failed, despite extensions, to produce individualized evidence of exposure, injury, causation, and reliable property-value loss as required by a case-management order, and the court determined the action lacked a prima facie and good-faith factual basis.


Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., No. L-33606-85 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1986)