[21] No. 2:14-cv-06456 (C.D. Cal. Aug.
12, 2015).
[22]See Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., No. LACV021232 (D.
Ct. Muscatine Cnty. Iowa Oct.
28, 2015)
(approving plaintiffs’ plan to only provide lay testimony for nuisance claims that they lost the use and
enjoyment of their property).
[23] 2015 WL 5852596, No. 04-14-00650-CV (Ct. App.
Tex. Oct. 7, 2015).
[24] See, e.g., Admasu v.
Port of Seattle, 185 Wash. App. 23 (2014) (denying certification to class alleging
private nuisance for airplane noise because commonality of injury and damages would not predominate
over individual inquiries).
[25] 371 Ark.
295 (2007).
[26] See also Dep't of Fish & Game v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. App.
4th 1323, 1337 (2011) (denying
certification to a class of landowners, business owners, and a city alleging nuisance for the poisoning of a
nearby lake because the different types of injury alleged by the diverse plaintiffs—including declining
property value, decreased property taxes, and decreased business income—did not predominate over
necessary individualized inquiries).
[27] See id.
All Content © 2003-2015, Portfolio Media, Inc.
.