Case Law In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liab.

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liab.

Document Cited Authorities (234) Cited in (147) Related

379 F.Supp.2d 348

In re: METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

This document relates to:

Columbia Board of Education v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., American Distilling and Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of East Hampton v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., United Water Connecticut, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., Escambia County Utilities Authority v. Amerada Hess Corp., Village of Island Lake v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Rockport v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Mishawaka v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of South Bend v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., North Newton School Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Campbellsburg v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Galva, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Park City v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Dodge City v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Chisholm Creek Utility Authority v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Bel Aire v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., City of Marksville v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Town of Rayville v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Town of Duxbury, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Dover v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., City of Portsmouth v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., New Jersey American Water Co., Inc., et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Basso, et al. v. Sunoco, Inc., et al., Carle Place Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., City of New York v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., County of Nassau v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., County of Suffolk, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Franklin Square Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Hicksville Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Incorporated Village of Mineola, et al. v. Agip, Inc., et al., Incorporated Village of Sands Point v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Long Island Water Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Port Washington Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Roslyn Water District v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Tonneson, et al., v. Exxon Mobile Corp., et al., Town of East Hampton v. Agip, Inc., et al., Town of Southampton v. Agip, Inc., et al., Town of Wappinger v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., United Water New York, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Village of Hempstead v. Agip, Inc., et al., Village of Pawling v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Water Authority of Great Neck North v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Water Authority of Western Naussau County v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., West Hempstead Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., Westbury Water District v. Agip, Inc., et al., Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Craftsbury Fire District #2 v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Hartland v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Buchanan County School Board v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Patrick County School Board v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Town of Matoaka v. Amerada Hess Corp., et al.,

No. MDL 1358(SAS).

No. M21-88.

No. 04 Civ.1716.

No. 04 Civ.1718-1722.

No. 04 Civ.2053.

No. 04 Civ.1724.

No. 04 Civ.2055-2057.

No. 04 Civ.4990.

No. 04 Civ.1723.

No. 04 Civ.2059-2062.

No. 04 Civ.3412.

No. 04 Civ.3413.

No. 04 Civ.1725.

No. 04 Civ.2067.

No. 04 Civ.2066.

No. 04 Civ.1726.

No. 03 Civ.9050.

No. 03 Civ.10053.

No. 04 Civ.3417.

No. 03 Civ.9543.

No. 04 Civ.5424.

No. 04 Civ.5423.

No. 04 Civ.5421.

No. 03 Civ.10051.

No. 04 Civ.3416.

No. 04 Civ.2068.

No. 04 Civ.3415.

No. 04 Civ.5422.

No. 03 Civ.8248.

No. 03 Civ.10056.

No. 03 Civ.10054.

No. 04 Civ.2388.

No. 04 Civ.2389.

No. 03 Civ.10055.

No. 04 Civ.2390.

No. 04 Civ.1727.

No. 03 Civ.9544.

No. 03 Civ.10052.

No. 03 Civ.10057.

No. 04 Civ.6993.

No. 04 Civ.3419.

No. 04 Civ.2072.

No. 04 Civ.3418.

No. 04 Civ.2070.

No. 04 Civ.3420.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 20, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert Gordon, Stanley N. Alpert, C. Sanders McNew, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Peter John Sacripanti, James A. Pardo, Stephen J. Riccardulli, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. 

                                Table of Contents
    I.  INTRODUCTION ..........................................................361
   II.  FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................364
  III.  LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................367
        A.  Rule 12(b)(6) .....................................................367
        B.  Rule 8 ............................................................367
        C.  Rule 9(b) .........................................................368
        D.  Prediction of State Law ...........................................369
   IV.  THEORIES OF COLLECTIVE LIABILITY ......................................370
        A.  Concurrent Wrongdoing .............................................371
        B.  Concert of Action Liability .......................................372
        C.  Alternative Liability .............................................373
        D.  Enterprise Liability ..............................................373
        E.  Market Share Liability ............................................374
        F.  "Commingled Product" Market Share Liability .......................377
    V.  CONNECTICUT ...........................................................379
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................379
        B.  Connecticut Products Liability Act ................................383
        C.  Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ............................385
        D.  Fraud .............................................................386
   VI.  FLORIDA ...............................................................388
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................388
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................389
        C.  Civil Conspiracy ..................................................390
  VII.  ILLINOIS ..............................................................391
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................391
        B.  Illinois Water Pollutant Discharge Act ............................393
 VIII.  INDIANA ...............................................................394
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................394
        B.  Indiana Environmental Legal Action ................................397
        C.  Downstream Handlers ...............................................397
   IX.  IOWA ..................................................................398
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................398
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................400
        C.  Fraud .............................................................401
    X.  KANSAS ................................................................402

        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................403
   XI.  LOUISIANA .............................................................405
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................405
        B.  Louisiana Products Liability Act ..................................408
  XII.  MASSACHUSETTS .........................................................409
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................409
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................411
        C.  Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and
             Response Act .....................................................412
 XIII.  NEW HAMPSHIRE .........................................................413
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................413
        B.  Nuisance ..........................................................416
        C.  Trespass ..........................................................417
        D.  Oil Discharge Statute .............................................418
        E.  New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act .............................419
  XIV.  NEW JERSEY ............................................................420
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................420
        B.  Private Nuisance ..................................................422
        C.  New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act .....................423
   XV.  NEW YORK ..............................................................424
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................425
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................426
        C.  New York Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Compensation Act ......427
        D.  Negligence Per Se .................................................429
        E.  Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................429
  XVI.  PENNSYLVANIA ..........................................................433
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................433
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................437
 XVII.  VERMONT, VIRGINIA, and WEST VIRGINIA ..................................438
        A.  Collective Liability ..............................................439
        B.  Trespass ..........................................................440
XVIII.  CONCLUSION
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2006
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe")
"... 457 F.Supp.2d 298 ... In re METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ... This document relates to: Hope Koch, et al. v. John R. Hicks, et al., 05 Civ. 5745(SAS) ... No. 1:00-1898 ... No. M ...         SO ORDERED ... --------------- ... 1. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., No. M21-88, MDL 1358, 2005 WL 3005794 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2007
In re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.
"...A.D.2d at 454, 656 N.Y.S.2d 371 (evidence of exposure to PCBs, but "no clinical evidence of PCB contamination"), 62. In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 431 (quoting Tischler v. Dimenna, 160 Misc.2d 525, 533, 609 N.Y.S.2d 1002 (Sup.Ct. Westchester Co.1994) ("someone who has b..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2009
Dallio v. Hebert
"...and Rule 8a's requirement of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a l..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2008
Crum v. Dodrill
"...and Rule 8[a]'s requirement of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2006
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Mtbe) Products
"...1358, 2006 WL 928997 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.7, 2006); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 415 F.Supp.2d 261 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 325 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. M21-88, MDL ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
3 books and journal articles
Document | Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law – 2010
The Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives
"...oxygen content. his oxygen content requirement applies during the portion 227. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prod. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2005). 228. In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:00CV01898, M21-88, MDL1358(SAS), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12400 (S.D.N.Y..."
Document | Núm. 39-3, March 2009 – 2009
Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
"...54 In essence, over the last 30 years, while legal 51. Id . at 14, tbl. 1. 52. Id . 53. See, e.g ., In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (consolidated cases naming over 100 defendants alleged to have polluted groundwater). 54. See Praveen Amar, Nescaum, Enviro..."
Document | Climate Justice in the Courts – 2016
From Responsibility to Cost-Effectiveness to Litigation: The Evolution of Climate Change Regulation and the Emergence of Climate Justice Litigation
"...use statistical, epidemiological and sociological evidence to prove its case”); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (recognizing the comingled product theory); Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 11 W.W.R. 201 (Supreme Court of C..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 books and journal articles
Document | Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law – 2010
The Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives
"...oxygen content. his oxygen content requirement applies during the portion 227. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prod. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2005). 228. In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:00CV01898, M21-88, MDL1358(SAS), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12400 (S.D.N.Y..."
Document | Núm. 39-3, March 2009 – 2009
Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
"...54 In essence, over the last 30 years, while legal 51. Id . at 14, tbl. 1. 52. Id . 53. See, e.g ., In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (consolidated cases naming over 100 defendants alleged to have polluted groundwater). 54. See Praveen Amar, Nescaum, Enviro..."
Document | Climate Justice in the Courts – 2016
From Responsibility to Cost-Effectiveness to Litigation: The Evolution of Climate Change Regulation and the Emergence of Climate Justice Litigation
"...use statistical, epidemiological and sociological evidence to prove its case”); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F. Supp. 2d 348, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (recognizing the comingled product theory); Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 11 W.W.R. 201 (Supreme Court of C..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2006
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe")
"... 457 F.Supp.2d 298 ... In re METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER ("MTBE") PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ... This document relates to: Hope Koch, et al. v. John R. Hicks, et al., 05 Civ. 5745(SAS) ... No. 1:00-1898 ... No. M ...         SO ORDERED ... --------------- ... 1. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., No. M21-88, MDL 1358, 2005 WL 3005794 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2007
In re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.
"...A.D.2d at 454, 656 N.Y.S.2d 371 (evidence of exposure to PCBs, but "no clinical evidence of PCB contamination"), 62. In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 431 (quoting Tischler v. Dimenna, 160 Misc.2d 525, 533, 609 N.Y.S.2d 1002 (Sup.Ct. Westchester Co.1994) ("someone who has b..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2009
Dallio v. Hebert
"...and Rule 8a's requirement of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a l..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York – 2008
Crum v. Dodrill
"...and Rule 8[a]'s requirement of disclosing sufficient information to put defendant on fair notice); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 348, 370 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("Although Rule 8 does not require plaintiffs to plead a theory of causation, it does not protect a..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2006
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Mtbe) Products
"...1358, 2006 WL 928997 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.7, 2006); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 415 F.Supp.2d 261 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 325 (S.D.N.Y.2005); In re MTBE Prods. Liab. Litig., No. M21-88, MDL ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.