Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 2017-022967-CA-01 · Order dated June 16, 2026 · Hon. Spencer Eig · Class certification granted
In Styles v. City of Miami, the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County granted class certification against the City arising from its decades-long operation of a municipal waste incinerator known as “Old Smokey” in the historically segregated community of West Coconut Grove. Plaintiffs alleged the incinerator released fly ash and bottom ash containing dioxins, arsenic, and other heavy metals onto surrounding residential properties, and that the City knew of the hazard but failed to disclose, investigate, or remediate it. Dr. Rosenfeld’s integrated soil, air, and chemical-source analysis was the evidentiary backbone of the court’s certification findings across every proposed class.
What Dr. Rosenfeld Contributed
The court described Dr. Rosenfeld as the plaintiffs’ “soil chemist, air modeler, and risk assessor,” and credited him with integrating several independent lines of evidence — residential soil sampling data from three separate testing entities, statistical evaluation, air dispersion modeling, and chemical fingerprinting — to determine whether the contamination pattern across the community was consistent with a single common source. He concluded that it was, and that Old Smokey was the source of the dioxin and arsenic contamination.
Using that integrated methodology, Dr. Rosenfeld drew the geographic boundary of the proposed Class Area (referred to in the litigation as the “Zone of Contamination”), relying on soil sampling results that exceeded Florida’s Residential Soil Target Cleanup Levels. The plaintiffs’ damages expert then confirmed that Dr. Rosenfeld’s Class Area encompassed approximately 2,220 residential properties. Dr. Rosenfeld also applied an EPA-consistent risk assessment methodology — based on duration of residency within the Class Area — to identify which residents faced a significantly increased risk of developing one of nine cancers associated with dioxin and arsenic exposure, and personally calculated individual cancer risk levels for each class representative.
“Dr. Rosenfeld… provided salient testimony. He analyzed soil testing from multiple sources and evaluated the existence, extent, and distribution of soil contamination within the West Grove and surrounding community… He concluded that [the patterns were consistent with a common source], and that Old Smokey was the source of dioxin and arsenic contamination.”
— Circuit Court, Order Granting Class Certification
Surviving Daubert and Anchoring Every Class
Before the certification hearing, the court conducted three days of Daubert proceedings on the admissibility of Dr. Rosenfeld’s opinions, alongside those of two defense experts. The court denied the City’s motion to exclude Dr. Rosenfeld’s testimony and admitted his opinions on contamination, exposure, risk, and the Class Area boundary — a ruling the court expressly relied on again at the certification stage. The court likewise denied the City’s summary judgment motion on the property damage class, finding Dr. Rosenfeld’s opinions admissible and sufficient to create triable issues of fact.
His work then anchored the commonality and predominance findings for all three certified classes:
- Medical Monitoring Class: his EPA-consistent exposure and risk methodology defined the class both geographically and by a common two-in-a-million cancer-risk threshold, using inputs the court found “commonly applied across similarly situated populations.”
- Property Class and subclasses: his soil-sampling analysis, Class Area delineation, air modeling, and chemical fingerprinting were held to be common evidence available to every property owner in the class, supporting both liability and a uniform damages framework.
- General Causation issue (Bodily Injury Class): his testimony, together with that of the plaintiffs’ toxicologist, epidemiologist, and treating physician, supported class-wide proof that dioxin and arsenic exposure can cause the nine identified cancers.
“[I]nsofar as Dr. Rosenfeld conducted air modeling to confirm the Class Area and source of the contamination, his methodology and conclusions is additional evidence available to all class members.”
— Circuit Court, Order Granting Class Certification
The court also noted that the City failed to present any expert who meaningfully rebutted Dr. Rosenfeld’s source and exposure analysis, or the damages framework built on top of it.
Outcome
The court granted class certification as to the City of Miami in full — certifying the Medical Monitoring Class, the Property Class and its subclasses, and the general-causation issue within the Bodily Injury Class — finding that all Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 requirements were satisfied, built substantially on Dr. Rosenfeld’s contamination source, exposure, and risk analysis.
References
- Styles v. City of Miami, Case No. 2017-022967-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., Order Granting Class Certification, June 16, 2026).
- Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011).
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).
- Petito v. A.H. Robins Co., 750 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
- City of Fort Lauderdale v. Hinton, 276 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
- Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220.
Provided for general informational purposes on air dispersion modeling and exposure assessment in class action litigation. Not legal advice. Case citations and quoted excerpts are drawn from the filed court order and should be independently verified against the official record before reliance in any filing.