This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps, five individual plaintiffs who own property, alleged diminution in value to their real estate caused by environmental contamination by DDT emanating from D's plant. Ps' motion for Class Certification was denied. Ps have continued to prosecute their individual causes of action on state-law theories of negligence, conspiracy, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, and punitive/exemplary damages, as well as a federal claim under RICO. All five Ps assert the same claims against the same Ds on the same legal theories. D moved to sever. Ds claim that a common trial would be inefficient and prejudicial. Ds also argue that severance is warranted because Ps never moved for consolidation and this Court never entered an order consolidating the five cases. Ps arguing that severing essentially identical claims would affect great inefficiency, undue delay, and undue expense, while also burdening the Court with presiding over a largely similar trial five times in a row.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.