Rocketdyne Neighbors Press Case in Suit

About 70 neighbors of the Santa Susana Field Lab on Monday made a second effort to establish a class-action lawsuit for property damage against Rocketdyne in federal court.

Their attempts were shot down in October by U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins, who called a previous lawsuit too broad. But she allowed them another chance to make their point.

Like its predecessor, the latest suit contends that the 2,668-acre field lab outside Simi Valley and three other sites in the San Fernando Valley contaminated air, surface water and ground water of surrounding properties.

With the new complaint, Santa Barbara-based lawyer J. Paul Gignac and others are trying to persuade the judge to expand the lawsuit beyond eight original plaintiffs. To do so, they must convince her that possible plaintiffs against Rocketdyne are so numerous--and their circumstances so similar--that it would save time and money to hear them as a group.

In addition to the eight original plaintiffs, about 60 people have joined the lawsuit seeking damages for personal injury--namely deaths and cancers of the thyroid, skin, brain, breasts, bladder, prostate, ovaries and more.

Rocketdyne spokesman Dan Beck declined to comment on the suit, citing a company policy that bars discussion of ongoing litigation.

To meet Collins’ concerns, the new complaint lists three possible classes--or similar groups--of plaintiffs. The first is people who have lived or worked in the “contamination area” of the Simi and San Fernando valleys since 1946 but display no illnesses that could be linked to Rocketdyne. The second is made up of people who own property near the “contamination area.” The third is made of people who now live, work or own property in the region.

While no dollar damages are specified, the complaint seeks a number of things, Gignac said.

“We want a court-supported program of medical monitoring for all the people out there who have not yet gotten a major illness from their exposure,” he said. “The people who have not yet had a doctor look at them and say, ‘You know, you have cancer.’ ”

Damages also are being sought for the personal injury and wrongful-death clients. Those with property damage are seeking compensation for diminution of land value plus the cost of rehabilitating their property.

The “contamination area” is loosely defined now, but it will become more clear when the law firm files a motion for class certification on Feb. 3, Gignac added. A hearing on that motion will very likely occur in mid-March.

“It looks vague in this complaint, but it will be more definite” by February, he said. “It will be based on the work of our experts, who are looking at air currents, ground-water flow and surface water runoff.”