dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 54 of 56and spoliation of their properties, water supplies and overallhabitable environment.” (Compl. 173).Plaintiffs were members of the purported class in thepredecessor Bano case, in which the Court rejected medicalmonitoring as inequitable becausemedical monitoring is not a feasible remedy and onewhich would face insurmountable hurdles. Locatingthousands of people who have resided 8,000 miles awayin Bhopal, India, over a span of more than thirtyyears would be nigh impossible. Plaintiffs claim thatthe affected population can readily be identified ascancer and immune deficiencies are diseases capable ofearly detection through screening. The Court findsthat the effort required to identify those citizens tobe monitored would be limitless. This task would beextremely onerous on defendants, if not impossible.Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 99 Civ.11329, 2003 WL 1344884,at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2003), aff’d in part, 361 F.3d 696 (2dCir. 2004). Relief in the form of remediation of the watersupply in Bano was also denied as impracticable, a ruling theSecond Circuit upheld on appeal. See Bano v. Union CarbideCorp., 198 F. App’x 32, 35 (2d Cir. 2006) (“As the districtcourt observed, any clean-up of the aquifer or groundwater wouldaffect the public generally and could not be undertaken withoutthe permission and supervision of the Indian government. Yet,India has indicated (understandably) that it would control sucha process; thus the same problems (lack of control and potentialconflict with the Indian authorities) are inherent in anyattempt to clean-up the aquifer and groundwater as were present54
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 55 of 56in the claims for remediation of the chemical plant site.”(internal citations omitted).The facts in this case are remarkably similar to those inBano, thus the Court believes that the reasoning of Bano shouldapply with equal force to the Sahu Plaintiffs. With respect tomedical monitoring, the thirteen named Plaintiffs seek relief onbehalf of themselves, their families, their minor children, anda putative class of similarly situated people who “continue toreside in the municipal wards and residential areas in thevicinity of the UCIL plant and continue to be exposed to toxins”from contaminated soil and groundwater. (Compl. 162).Administration of such a program would require identification ofevery resident considered to be living “in the vicinity” of theBhopal Plant site, and then further identification of thoseresidents who “continue to be exposed to toxins.” To confirmexposure, it would be necessary to test the soil and drinkingwater supply throughout Bhopal. Literally construed,Plaintiffs’ complaint may seek medical monitoring for everycurrent resident of the Bhopal area – an impossible task.With respect to remediation, as in Bano, the Court againfinds that remediation of the aquifer or groundwater suppliesrequested by Plaintiffs “would affect the public generally andcould not be undertaken without the permission and supervisionof the Indian government.” 198 F. App’x at 35. Thus, UCC’s55
Page 1 and 2:
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 3 and 4: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 56: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
show all

dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?