Richard Cotromano v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation

USCA11 Case: 22-13024 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13024
____________________

RICHARD COTROMANO,
BETHANY COTROMANO,
FRANK DECARLO,
PAULETTE DECARLO,
GREGORY DUNSFORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
BILL FEATHERSTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
JOSEPH ADINOLFE, et al.,
Consol Plaintiffs,
versus
USCA11 Case: 22-13024 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13024

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT AND
WHITNEY GROUP, et al.,

Defendants,

RTX CORPORATION, d/b/a PRATT & WHITNEY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80928-KAM
____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns one of many toxic tort cases stemming
from a property known as “The Acreage” in Palm Beach County,
Florida. Defendant-Appellee Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
d/b/a Pratt & Whitney (P&W) operates an industrial facility five
miles north of The Acreage. Plaintiffs-Appellants include various
property owners who reside in The Acreage. In 2009, the Florida
Department of Health (FDOH) declared a cancer cluster in The
Acreage. After these findings received attention from news outlets
USCA11 Case: 22-13024 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 3 of 4

22-13024 Opinion of the Court 3

and realtor associations alike, Plaintiffs-Appellants sued P&W and
sought compensation for diminution of property value resulting
from stigmatization. Plaintiffs-Appellants alleged that P&W’s im-
proper remediation and disposal of radioactive materials caused
the cancer cluster, and the resulting designation by the FDOH uni-
formly stigmatized The Acreage.
On appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants argue the following:
I. The district court abused its discretion in excluding
the testimony of various experts put forward by Plain-
tiffs-Appellants.
II. The district court abused its discretion in allowing
certain P&W expert testimony.
III. The district court abused its discretion in its phrasing
of special jury interrogatories.
IV. The district court abused its discretion in denying
class certification.
After careful review of the briefs and record, and with the benefit
of oral argument, we find no reversible error.
Beginning with the expert testimony challenges, the record
demonstrates that the district court conducted a comprehensive
two-day hearing to address the various motions under Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Our review
of the record demonstrates that the district court acted well within
the “considerable leeway” we afford trial courts’ expert testimony
decisions—whether in excluding the testimony of Brian Moore,
USCA11 Case: 22-13024 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13024

Bernd Franke, and Dr. William Sawyer, along with permitting the
testimony of Dr. Duane Mitchell. See Chapman v. Procter & Gamble
Distrib., LLC, 766 F.3d 1296, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation
marks omitted). Given the district court’s thorough familiarity
with the case’s evidentiary circumstances, we see no reason to dis-
turb its expert testimony rulings.
Nor do we find reversible error as to either the special inter-
rogatories or class certification. A review of the record demon-
strates that the district court methodically handled the parties’ ob-
jections, and the final verdict form and instructions, taken together,
comport with both Florida law and this case’s factual posture. See
Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.
1999); Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991)
(per curiam). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in
its phrasing of the special interrogatories. And because Plaintiffs-
Appellants’ other challenges fail, we need not reach the merits of
the class certification claim. See Williams v. Wallis, 734 F.2d 1434,
1441 (11th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned decisions by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.