 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Van Tonder v. Chevron Corporation2/25/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
This action arose from an explosion and fire at Chevron's Richmond Refinery on the afternoon of March 25, 1999. For approximately three hours, thousands of people in the area were instructed to stay inside, behind closed windows and doors, in order to avoid the toxic smoke and fumes emanating from the refinery.
A number of individuals who either lived in Richmond or who were in the area at the time of the explosion brought suit against Chevron Corporation, Chevron USA, Inc., and Chevron Products Company (collectively, Chevron), asserting various tort claims. These individual plaintiffs sought to represent two plaintiff classes: a shelter-in-place class and a punitive damages class. The trial court denied the initial request for class certification as well as a renewed request for certification. Plaintiffs challenge both decisions and we reverse.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Chevron for equitable relief, negligence, battery, negligence per se, private nuisance, public nuisance, trespass, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices. They requested compensatory and punitive damages. The complaint alleged generally that as a result of an explosion and fire at Chevron's Richmond Refinery, residents, workers and students in the surrounding area were instructed to shelter in place for a period of approximately three hours.
Plaintiffs sought to represent two classes-a shelter-in-place class and a punitive damages class. Plaintiffs explained that these classes would "not seek adjudication of personal injuries, emotional distress, or property damages on a class-wide basis." The complaint described the shelter-in-place class as consisting of "all persons and entities who were in the vicinity of Chevron's Richmond Refinery and who . . . sheltered in place as a result of the March 25, 1999 explosion . . . for which this Complaint alleges annoyance, inconvenience, and the loss of enjoyment of legal rights . . . ." The complaint described the punitive damages class as consisting of "all persons present in and around the area of the Chevron Refinery in Richmond who were proximately damaged or harmed as a result of the March 25, 1999 explosion . . . . The Punitive Damages Class includes all persons who suffered personal injuries and/or emotional distress, who were forced to remain sheltered in place, or who suffered any other cognizable injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. . . ." In addition to seeking to represent these classes, plaintiffs also sought damages for their own personal injuries.
Chevron's petition requesting coordination of the San Francisco action with actions filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court was granted and the cases were coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court. Judge Stuart R. Pollak was initially assigned as the coordination trial judge, but the assignment was later transferred to Judge Carlos Bea.
On June 8, 2001, plaintiffs moved for class certification. They described the "shelter-in-place" class as those individuals who had sheltered in place in "Zones 1, 2, and/or 5" or in Richmond, North Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, El Sobrante or Pinole and who "completed a plaintiff Questionnaire within a time to be specified by the Court." The "punitive damages" class
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|