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

Subscribe
Previous Issues

3M Removes Michigan AG’s Case to Federal Court

3M removed Michigan’s PFAS contamination case to federal court, arguing that its AFFF was developed in accordance with applicable federal military requirements and that, as a result, removal is proper because defendants sued for acts committed at a federal officer’s direction may remove. 3M also argues it plans to invoke the government contractor defense. Although the complaint says its claims do not involve AFFF, 3M argues otherwise.

March 2, 2021 | Dana Nessel et al. v. 3M Co. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00205 (W.D. Mich.)

Residents Near Summerville, Georgia File Suit, Alleging Contamination of Farms and Town Water Supply

Residents and property owners near Summerville, Georgia filed a putative class action alleging PFAS-contaminated sludge and biosolids from Trion, Georgia’s water pollution control plant are migrating and contaminating their properties and farms. Plaintiffs’ complaint, which alleges causes of action in tort and under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

February 23, 2021 | Parris v. 3M Co., No. 4:21-cv-40 (N.D. Ga.)

Pennsylvania Water Utility Alleges Illegal DuPont Spinoff in New PFAS Contamination Case

Pennsylvania-American Water Co. alleges in a new PFAS contamination suit against PFAS manufacturers that DuPont violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by illegally transferring its PFAS business to Chemours in an attempt to avoid PFAS-related liability. The suit, which names many PFAS manufacturers, also alleges strict liability, products liability, negligence, and nuisance claims.

February 11, 2021 | Pennsylvania-American Water Co. v. 3M Co. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00258 (M.D. Pa.)

Tyco Fire Products Reaches $17.5 Million Settlement in AFFF MDL for PFAS Contamination

Tyco Fire Products LP has agreed to a $17.5 million settlement to resolve claims by plaintiffs alleging PFAS from Tyco’s operations contaminated their drinking wells. The court in the South Carolina AFFF MDL has issued a preliminary approval of the parties’ agreement.

January 25, 2021 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (D.S.C.)