In a significant victory for Defendant D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (“D.C. Water”), which is represented in the action by Beveridge & Diamond, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a putative class action relating to claims of injuries due to lead allegedly found in drinking water in the city. Parkhurst v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 2009 CA 000971 B (D.C. Sup. Ct. Apr. 8, 2013), available a twww.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Parkhurst.pdf.

In a 34-page opinion, the Court analyzed each factor under Rule 23, and held that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of numerosity, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, or superiority.  Parkhurst, slip op. at 8.  Among other findings, the Court concluded the threshold requirement that the proposed class be identifiable had not been met; the proposed class was both over- and under-inclusive; and that common issues did not predominate over individual issues, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ proposal to deal separately with common and individual issues through a bifurcated proceeding.  Id. at 10-17.

The Court further denied plaintiffs’ request for certification of issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4)(A).  Notably, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that issue classes may be certified without meeting Rule 23(b)’s key requirement of predominance, observing that such an interpretation would allow putative class representatives to “simply ask for certification of any common issues under [Rule 23](c)(4) and . . . would effectively read the predominance requirement out of Rule 23(b)(3)” altogether. Id. at 29.