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.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE NEW POST NOTIFICATIONS

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, and seeks compensation for present and future costs.

December 18, 2020 | Suez Water New Jersey Inc. v E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., et al., No. 2:20-cv-19906 (D.N.J.)

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 costs.

December 1, 2020 | Orange County Water District, et al. v. 3M Co. et al., No. 30-2020-01172419-CU-PL-CXC (Super. Ct. Cal.)

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 nuisance-related allegations fail to show any requisite affirmative conduct by 3M and DuPont.

November 20, 2020 | Golden State Water Co. v. 3M et al., No. 2:20-cv-08897-SVW-AS (C.D. Cal.)

Third Circuit Sides with 3M, Sending PFAS Securities Fraud Class Action to Minnesota

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 3M’s favor, sending a securities fraud class action—alleging that 3M underrepresented its potential PFAS-related liability and failed to maintain adequate reserves for such liabilities—from New Jersey to Minnesota. The Court emphasized that, despite the environmental harms involved being in New Jersey, other factors, such as the location of 3M’s headquarters where many of the alleged fraudulent statements were made, tipped the balance in favor of transfer.

November 18, 2020 | In re: 3M Company, et al., No. 20-2864 (3rd Cir.)

Putative Class Action Filed for Alleged PFAS in Menstrual Products

A California resident has filed a putative action against Thinx Inc., a manufacturer of underwear designed for feminine hygiene purposes. Plaintiff alleges that, despite representations that it “take[s] consumer health and safety seriously,” Thinx  knowingly manufactured products containing dangerously high levels of PFAS. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of California’s false advertising and consumer protection laws and negligent failure to warn, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

November 12, 2020 | Kanan v. Thinx, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-10341 (C.D. Cal.)