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
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 (S.D. Ohio)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)