## Facts

- Hundreds of schoolchildren and adult chaperones attended a January 12, 2007 historical reenactment at the Chalmette National Battlefield adjacent to Chalmette Refining’s refinery.
- Petroleum coke dust escaped from the refinery and allegedly drifted over the battlefield while attendees were present.
- Attendees claimed varied harms, including physical symptoms, pain and suffering, emotional distress, evacuation-related harms, and economic and property losses.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) damages class consisting of individuals present at the battlefield during the release who were exposed and injured.
- In the district court, discovery relevant to certification was limited; plaintiffs conducted no discovery, and the certification hearing involved argument only, with no evidentiary presentation.
- The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class for most claims (but not medical monitoring), reasoning that common issues predominated and that individual damages could be handled later.
- Chalmette Refining took an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class without the required rigorous analysis of predominance and superiority.
2. Whether the district court failed to assess how a class trial could be conducted given individualized questions of exposure, causation, and damages.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the class-certification order and remanded.
- The court held that the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class without a rigorous Rule 23 analysis, especially as to predominance and superiority.
- The court faulted the certification order for treating the key question as mere presence and exposure, without analyzing material individual variations (exposure levels, susceptibility, types of injuries and losses).
- The court concluded the district court did not meaningfully evaluate how the case would be tried on a classwide basis, including how liability and causation could be proved with common evidence.
- The court noted the sparse record and lack of evidentiary support at the certification stage as inconsistent with the required analysis.
- The court indicated that narrower approaches (including possible limited or refined certification) remained open on remand if supported by an adequate record and a workable trial plan.

## Legal Principles

- A court may certify a class only after a rigorous analysis showing that Rule 23(a) and the chosen Rule 23(b) requirements are satisfied.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and class treatment must be superior to other available methods of adjudication.
- Predominance requires considering how the merits would be tried and whether common proof would drive resolution, not merely whether a common event occurred.
- In mass-exposure tort cases, differences in individual exposure, causation, susceptibility, and injury often bear directly on predominance and must be confronted, not deferred by labeling them “damages” issues.
- Superiority requires reasoned consideration of manageability and alternatives to full (b)(3) certification, such as individualized trials, consolidation of specific issues, or other case-management devices.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed certification because the district court did not conduct an evidence-based, rigorous analysis of predominance and superiority and did not explain how classwide adjudication of exposure and causation would be manageable given substantial individual variation.


Madison v. Chalmette Refin., L.L.C., 637 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2011)