TRENTON, N.J. - A Pennsylvania school district is among lead plaintiffs that have officially settled long-running litigation against the maker of FieldTurf.
The claims alleged school districts purchased the product to cover sports fields but it deteriorated prematurely. The claims were consolidated for multidistrict litigation before a federal judge in New Jersey, Michael Shipp.
Neshannock Township School District filed its lawsuit in 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and became a lead plaintiff in the MDL, along with school districts, counties and cities in other states.
The proposed settlement was given preliminary approval earlier this year and then formally approved on Dec. 13.
Named class representatives like Neshannock will receive $25,000 each, while lead counsel will get $8.5 million. Those lawyers say they spent more than 45,000 hours litigating the case over seven years.
The settlement avoided a trial that was scheduled for April 2024. Class members are divided into two tiers and can apply for either $7,500 or $2,000, plus credit awards. Tier 1 claims can seek $50,000 for the purchase of a new FieldTurf field, and Tier 2 claimants can seek $20,000.
Lead counsel were The Moskowitz Law Firm, Seeger Weiss, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello.
“All of the credit really goes to FieldTurf for deciding to help their dedicated customers, and to Judge Shipp, who dedicated all of the necessary time and resources to manage this important multi-district litigation towards resolution," Adam Moskowitz said.
“Judge Shipp’s July Order is a brilliant roadmap for all courts to consider, regarding whether to certify 'issue questions.' Judge Shipp, and his extra efforts, are why the public continues to have great confidence in our legal system, and specifically in class actions.”
That order granted preliminary approval of the settlement and certified and sorted the class into two tiers.
FieldTurf and Tarkett defended their product in a January motion for summary judgment that was never ruled on, because of the settlement. Duraspine's fiber design was allegedly flawed geometrically and manufactured with an inappropriate polymer.
"To prove their design defect theory, Plaintiffs must show that either the risk of the product outweighed its utility, or that a feasible alternative design the defective design could have been used instead," the motion says.
The plaintiffs could do neither, the motion said. FieldTurf said plaintiff lawyers never attempted to show any alternative fiber design existed at the time the plaintiffs purchased their fields.
Citing the plaintiff expert's own testimony that "nothing is perfect," FieldTurf wrote, "Plaintiffs do not - because they cannot - point to any design that could have prevented the Duraspine fiber from any splitting or layover after years of use."
The firms Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Glenn Agre Berman & Fuentes represented FieldTurf.