New Jersey
Civil Justice Institute

  • Helpful Links
  • Contact Us
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
    • Our Mission
    • Membership
    • Our Staff
  • ISSUES & ADVOCACY
  • OUR WORK IN THE COURTS
  • NEWSROOM
  • GET INVOLVED

Fairness. Justice.
Rule of Law.

Appellate division disappointment on class certification

May 29, 2020NewsNJCJI

There was a disappointing unpublished decision out of the appellate division this week in Sutton v. Hoffman LaRoche, Inc., the City of Clifton, the Township of Nutley, and Deluxe Corporation. 

The appellate division panel of Judges Fisher, Accurso and Gilson upheld the trial judge’s class certification order, which granted certification of a class of all residential property owners within 200 feet of a contaminated site in Nutley.

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 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.

NJCJI appeared as amicus in the appeal to defend the rigorous inquiry New Jersey courts have consistently required to determine the existence of a bona fide class.  As underscored by the NJ Supreme Court in Dugan v. TGI Fridays, Inc., plaintiffs must be able to prove the essential elements of their claims, including injury, with evidence common to the class.

Unfortunately, the appellate division panel made same mistake as trial judge, conflating the existence of injury with proof of the quantum of damages.  The court wrote that “individualized proof of damages is the norm for class actions.”  And offered that “if plaintiffs cannot establish a reliable method to calculate damages on a class-wide basis, then they will have to prove individual damages, which, as already noted, is often the norm in class actions.”

The analysis falls short of the standard of scrutiny explained most recently in Dugan, which emphasized that a post-verdict claims process is not an appropriate forum for determining an element that is essential to liability. Rather, plaintiffs have the burden to prove those elements at trial.

NJCJI would like to thank Gavin J. Rooney, Joseph Fischetti, and Justin Corbalis at Lowenstein Sandler for their excellent work on the brief and at the virtual oral argument.  We appreciate Gavin’s longstanding efforts to ensure rigorous standards for class certifications, including the outstanding amicus work in the Dugan case, referenced above.

Newsletter Sign Up




© 2022 NJCJI. All rights reserved.

Follow us on:

  • twitter
  • linkedin

TWITTER FEED TWITTER FEED

  • https://t.co/DlWbCRFBea, Jul 1
  • https://t.co/xl0stnCZfj NJCJI President Anthony Anastasio testified this week about the implications of NJ Senate… https://t.co/o55d5pA29b, Jun 24
  • https://t.co/x2z9vrW707 Thank you to @PPAGInc, @GenovaBurns, and @PBWTLaw for your support of the 2022 Spring Event!, Jun 21
  • Institute for Legal Reform Releases Update on Third-Party Litigation Funding https://t.co/UQDqeUQ712, Apr 15
  • The American Tort Reform Association issued a report about the National Association of Attorneys General. https://t.co/14sYVCKPrY, Apr 8

    QUICK CONTACT



    Please enter the code as shown below

    captcha

    New Jersey Civil Justice Institute | 112 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 | office: (609) 218-6331 | info@civiljusticenj.org