In Re: Combustion ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    CONSOLIDATED CASES
    SUMMARY CALENDAR
    In re: COMBUSTION, INC.
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31040
    ___________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL,
    Defendants,
    VICKIE GUNTER, as Administratrix for the Succession of
    Mary M. Gunter; TAMMY SALTER, as representative for
    John Salter,
    Claimants-Appellants.
    * * * *
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31041
    ____________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    JOEL E. TALLEY; PATRICIA H. TALLEY; SARA E.
    TALLEY, Minor,
    Claimants-Appellants.
    * * * *
    __________________________________
    No. 97-31132
    ___________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    DAVID H. SMITH; REBECCA G. SMITH; ELLEN S.
    BALLARD,
    Claimants-Appellants.
    * * * *
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31138
    ___________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    ROBERT W. THIBODAUX,
    Claimant-Appellant.
    *   *       *   *
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31139
    ___________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    BENNIE T. VAIL,
    Claimant-Appellant.
    2
    * * * *
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31206
    ____________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABC CORP., ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    KAREN VAIL HOLMES,
    Claimant-Appellant.
    * * * *
    ___________________________________
    No. 97-31340
    ____________________________________
    PLAINTIFFS’ STEERING COMMITTEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JOEL E. TALLEY, on behalf of son MATTHEW B.
    TALLEY,
    Claimant-Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    (94-MDL-4000)
    September 18, 1998
    Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    3
    POLITZ, Chief Judge:*
    Appellants Mary M. Gunter, John Salter, Joel E. Talley, Patricia H. Talley,
    Matthew B. Talley (minor), Sara E. Talley (minor), David H. Smith, Rebecca G.
    Smith, Ellen S. Ballard, Robert W. Thibodaux, Bennie T. Vail, and Karen Vail
    Holmes appeal a judgment of the district court allocating damages in this case. 1
    This appeal arises out of a toxic tort class action involving a hazardous waste
    site located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The site served as an oil recycling
    center until 1980 and is now known as the Combustion, Inc. Superfund Site.
    Procedurally, this litigation is extremely complex and it has extended over an
    11–year time span. Throughout this period, the district judge has done a fine job
    of managing this case and assuring that the claimants’ interests were protected. To
    this end, the district judge appointed a special master to, inter alia, establish
    appropriate criteria to evaluate claims and to propose allocations of damages to be
    paid to the many class members. The amount of each class member’s recovery was
    determined in part by placement in recovery categories established by the special
    master. A claimant’s placement in a recovery category was determined after
    weighing numerous factors, including proximity to the site, severity of exposure,
    and extent of damages.
    In their briefs, several of the appellants raise class-wide issues including the
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    1
    Mary M. Gunter and John Salter are represented herein by their succession
    representatives.
    4
    adequacy of class representation, the fairness of partial settlements with defendants,
    and the fixing of reserves in order to establish the Claimants’ Fund. These class-
    wide issues were resolved by a series of final judgments rendered by the district
    court. These issues were not appealed by the attorneys representing the class
    representatives, they are not now appealable by appellants and, thus, are not
    properly before this court.2
    Issues properly before this court include those related to the individual final
    judgments affirming award allocations determined by the special master. The
    appellants contend that they did not receive adequate compensation because they
    were placed in the wrong recovery category and they further claim that they were
    not given a full and fair hearing by the district judge. As 
    noted supra
    , the district
    judge has done a laudable job in managing this massive litigation. After a close
    review of the record, we find no basis for the contention that the district judge erred
    or abused his discretion in his review of the special master’s allocation of damages
    for any appellant.
    After receipt of the special master’s report recommending allocation of
    damage awards, the district court ordered that class members be given the
    opportunity to contest any finding made by the special master. Hearings before the
    special master resulted in upward adjustments totaling $1,917,496. 3 While the
    appellants understandably are upset that they were damaged by the pollutants left
    
    2 Walker v
    . City of Mesquite, 
    858 F.2d 1071
    (5th Cir. 1988).
    3
    In addition to these adjustments, corrections were also made for coding and distance
    errors totaling $2,825,334.
    5
    at the Combustion site, the district judge was faced with the difficult task of
    determining the proper distribution of limited funds. Our review of the record,
    briefs, and the applicable law discloses neither error nor abuse of discretion in the
    allocations appealed.
    The judgments appealed are AFFIRMED.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-31340

Filed Date: 9/18/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014