PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, WA

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Massachusetts’ Attorney General Files Suit Against 3M Company and other Chemical Companies Over Alleged Statewide PFAS Pollution

The Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a civil complaint against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that the defendant chemical companies advertised, marketed, manufactured, and sold aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) in the state, despite allegedly knowing that PFAS was dangerous and toxic.

May 25, 2022 | Massachusetts v. 3M Co. Case No. 2:22-cv-1649, Master Docket No.: 2:18-mn-2873 (D.S.C.)

Federal Judge Dismissed Class Action Suit Involving Alleged PFAS-Contaminated Sites the Defendant Company Inherited from DuPont

The court dismissed with prejudice all the remaining claims in a federal securities class action suit against The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) and other individual defendants, which alleged the defendants defrauded their shareholders by failing to disclose the full extent of their environmental liabilities. The lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, failed to comply with the court’s order to file the deposition of the case’s only remaining witness, whose allegations were the sole remaining support for the complaint, the majority of which had already been partially dismissed.

May 19, 2022 | In re The Chemours Co. Secs. Litig. Case No. 19-1911-CFC (D. Del.)

Hamptons Residents Bring Lawsuit Against the Department of Interior and Army Corps of Engineers

In November 2021, the Department of Interior (“DOI”) approved the construction and operation of the 132-megawatt South Fork Wind Project, developed by Orsted and Eversource, off of the coast of Long Island. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a dredging permit for the project in January 2022. Two East Hampton, New York couples accused the DOI and Army Corps of approving mainland work needed to connect the project to the grid even though it will allegedly disturb and spread existing PFAS groundwater contamination. The plaintiffs argue that the work runs adjacent to their properties and threatens to disturb and spread the pollution that is already impacting wells on their properties and also makes their properties less valuable. The plaintiffs are asking that the court find that the DOI and the Army Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedures Act.

March 9, 2022 | Mahoney et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01305 (E.D.N.Y.)

Daikin’s Attempt to Certify Questions Concerning PFAS-Manufacturers’ Liability to Georgia Supreme Court Denied

In February 2021, Earl Parris, Jr. filed a class action complaint, and later an amended complaint, in the Northern District of Georgia against Daikin America (“Daikin”), Inc., and other defendants, alleging discharges of PFAS-contaminated sludge and biosolids into the Raccoon Creek watershed. The court denied of Daikin’s Motion to Dismiss and request to certify questions to the Georgia Supreme Court or for interlocutory appeal.  

April 27, 2022 (defendant’s motion to certify or for interlocutory appeal filed); June 27, 2022 (court denies defendant’s motion to certify or for interlocutory appeal) | Parris, Jr. v. 3M Co. Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga)

Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Suit Against Burger King Involving PFAS in its Whopper and French Fry Packaging

Azman Hussain filed a putative class action suit against Burger King Corporation, which alleged that he and other members were injured by Burger King’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the presence of PFAS in its food packaging. Burger King, in a motion to dismiss, argued that its use of PFAS in its food packaging was not illegal or unsafe since using PFAS violated neither state nor federal law and that the types of PFAS at issue in the case complied with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s food governance regulations. Ultimately, Hussain voluntarily dismissed his suit against Burger King without prejudice.

April 11, 2022 (complaint filed); August 22, 2022 (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit) | Hussain v. Burger King Corp. Case No. 4:22-cv-02258 (N.D. Cal.)