|

Court Rejects 3M’s Bid to Prevent Implementation of New Jersey PFAS Restrictions

In a one-page order, the Superior Court of New Jersey’s appellate division has rejected 3M and others’ attempt to stay implementation of New Jersey’s new PFAS drinking water restrictions. The court impliedly rejected 3M’s argument that the regulation would cause unreasonable costs and irreparable harm to New Jersey businesses and their customers, allowing implementation to…

|

Judge Refuses DuPont’s Motion for Mistrial Following $50 Million Verdict

Despite allegations that the judge’s bias affected the trial’s outcome, the district court rejected DuPont’s motion for mistrial. DuPont’s motion followed the jury’s issuance of a $50 million verdict to the cancer survivor plaintiff, who alleged damages from PFAS contamination. December 31, 2020 | Abbott v. E.I. du Pont e Nemours & Co., No. 2:17-cv-998…

|

New Jersey Water Provider Sues PFAS Manufacturers Seeking Cleanup Funding

Suez Water New Jersey Inc., which provides water for approximately 1.5 million New Jersey residents, has sued PFAS manufacturers for contamination to its water systems. Suez claims the contamination will result in extensive monitoring and remedial costs to comply with new state PFAS-related standards. The complaint alleges claims for nuisance, negligence, trespass, and strict liability,…

Suit Filed Over Orange County, California PFAS Contamination

The Orange County Water District and other area water districts filed suit against 3M, DuPont, Corteva, Inc, and Decra Roofing Systems over PFAS contamination in local water supplies.  Decra Roofing Systems, a California-based company. The water districts allege nuisance, negligence, and products liability claims against the defendants and seek damages, injunctive relief, attorneys fees and…

3M and DuPont Argue for Dismissal of Nuisance Claims in California PFAS Case

Defendants 3M and DuPont have asked the Central District of California to dismiss Golden State Water Company’s public nuisance claims. 3M and DuPont argue the complaint fails to sufficiently show they caused the harms alleged. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff lacks the exclusive possession of property necessary to sustain a trespass claim, and that Plaintiff’s…