TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A class action lawsuit involving several big companies over groundwater contamination has received a favorable ruling from a New Jersey appeals court.
On May 27, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed class certification in a lawsuit that says pollution from a former Hoffman-LaRoche facility caused homeowners in Nutley and Clifton to suffer a reduction in the values of their homes. No adverse health effects have been alleged.
Facing the class action, Roche filed a third-party complaint against almost 30 companies that it says contributed to groundwater contamination in the area, like Shell Oil, Utz and Lockheed Martin. The City of Clifton, another defendant, has also filed a claim against DuPont.
Homeowners in the area allege Roche released “abnormally dangerous and hazardous chemicals” into the ground. The company has been attempting to remediate any contamination since 1992 and hasn’t operated the 118-acre research facility since 2013. The town of Nutley is also a defendant.
Roche argued the plaintiffs’ motion to certify their class was improperly granted by the trial judge because a “rigorous analysis” of the evidence presented did not take place, but the Appellate Division disagreed.
The case caught the attention of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief.
“Plaintiffs had conceded there were no health or safety concerns related to the contamination. Rather, the alleged injury is tied to the Classification Exception Area (CEA) notice sent to homes near contamination, which designates groundwater sources as unfit for certain uses,” the group said.
“The notice does not suggest residents are at risk of harm, and all residents draw water from city sources unrelated to the affected aquifer. The alleged injury instead turns on a possible diminution in property value that might result from disclosure of CEA notice. The complaint includes a bare assertion that all class members have in fact suffered a diminution in property values.”
But the Appellate Court wrote that a class of homeowners who would have to receive the regulatory notice is sufficiently identifiable, turning back Defendants’ arguments that some homeowners in the class might have different issues than others.
“If individualized issues present difficulties in the management of this class litigation at a later stage, the trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, subdivide classes or maintain class status with respect to only particular issues,” the court wrote.
“Mere speculation that management issues may arise should not foreclose a finding of superiority.”