## Facts

- Former employees of the M/V Treasure Chest Casino (a floating casino operating from Kenner, Louisiana) alleged respiratory illnesses from defective or poorly maintained ventilation and extremely smoky conditions on the vessel.
- The named plaintiffs were diagnosed with conditions including asthma and bronchitis during their employment; two experienced respiratory attacks requiring hospitalization while working aboard the casino.
- A treating physician testified she treated many casino employees for similar respiratory problems and attributed those conditions to the onboard environment.
- Plaintiffs sued the casino operator asserting Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims.
- Plaintiffs sought a class consisting of crew members who suffered occupational respiratory illness allegedly caused or worsened by the vessel’s ventilation system.
- After limited discovery, the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and approved a phased trial plan: common liability issues first, followed by individual issues such as causation and damages.
- The defendant sought interlocutory review of the certification order.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Rule 23(a) numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied for the proposed class.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding under Rule 23(b)(3) that common issues predominated over individualized issues of exposure, medical history, causation, and damages.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding a class action was a superior method to adjudicate the employees’ claims.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the class certification order.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the asserted maritime claims.
- The court accepted the district court’s determination that the class size (roughly 100–150 employees) made joinder impracticable.
- The court agreed that shared questions—such as vessel and seaman status, the condition of the ventilation system, negligence, and unseaworthiness—supported commonality and predominance.
- The court upheld the use of a bifurcated trial plan to try common liability issues collectively while reserving individualized causation and damages for later phases.
- The court agreed that class treatment was superior given the number of potential claimants and the efficiency gains from resolving common liability questions once.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and district courts have broad latitude in applying Rule 23.
- Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality may be satisfied where claims arise from a common alleged source of harm and shared legal theories, even if class members’ injuries vary in degree.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance does not require that all issues be common; it is sufficient that central liability questions are susceptible to common proof and outweigh individualized issues.
- Individualized inquiries into medical causation and damages do not necessarily defeat predominance when liability issues can be tried on a classwide basis and individualized matters managed separately.
- Phased or bifurcated proceedings may be used to address common liability issues first and individual causation and damages later.
- A class action may be superior where it avoids duplicative litigation, reduces the risk of inconsistent outcomes on common liability questions, and provides an efficient mechanism for claims that may be impractical to pursue individually.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of casino-vessel employees asserting maritime injury claims, concluding that common liability questions concerning vessel conditions and the defendant’s conduct predominated and could be tried collectively, with individualized causation and damages handled in subsequent phases.


Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999)