Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LUDWIG v. PILKINGTON

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


October 12, 2004.

Ludwig
v.
Pilkington.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge

On October 7, 2004, Pilkington filed a motion to decertify the class in this case. For the reasons discussed in our last status hearing, I am treating this as a motion to reconsider my earlier order of November 4, 2003 granting class certification. Pilkington now claims that facts, related to direct soil contamination, uncovered during discovery, make class certification, on the issue of Pilkington's improper dumping of contaminated soil, inappropriate. In its motion, Pilkington carefully limits its discussion to the direct dumping of soil on properties in and around the Village of Naplate. Pilkington points out that testimony elicited through interrogatories and depositions tends to show that Pilkington's dumping of allegedly contaminated soil was limited to discrete areas and was not as widespread as Plaintiffs originally claimed.

Pilkington argues that the discrete nature of the alleged dumping destroys the commonality and typicality required by Fed.R. Civ. P. 23(a) as well as the predominance required by Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The dumping of contaminated soil, however, is just one part of the Plaintiffs' claims of contamination, which include allegation of arsenic emanating from the Ottawa plant through other methods of dispersion and migration.

The core issue of this case, as pointed out in my November 4th opinion, is still whether Pilkington's handling of arsenic containing waste, of multiple types, caused contamination in Naplate. The differing factual issues pointed out by Pilkington, on the subject of contaminated soil dumping, are relatively minor and as such do not destroy commonality, typicality, or predominance. See Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992); De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983); LeClercq v. Lockformer Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2115 at *19 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2001); Mejdreck v. Lockformer Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14785 at *18-20 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2002). Moreover, factual determinations, such as whether, based on all the evidence presented, Pilkington engaged in widespread dumping of contaminated soil, are most properly determined at trial by a jury, not in a motion for reconsideration of class certification. For these reasons, I stand by my November 4th opinion granting class certification.

  The motion to decertify is denied.

20041012

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.