PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

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

CAFA Jurisdiction Keeps Putative Class in Federal Court

After 3M removed this putative class action to the NDGA, Judge Totenberg asked the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. After both sides agreed CAFA supplied jurisdiction, the Court decided not to remand the case, noting the inapplicability of CAFA’s exceptions due to “namely the existence of other similar class actions and the fact that the current record does not necessitate the inference that two-thirds of the putative class are Georgia citizens.”

January 21, 2020 | Johnson v. 3M Co., et al., No. 4:20-00008-AT (N.D. Ga.)

Panel Thwarts Attempt to Add Middlesex Water Co. v. 3M Co. to MDL No. 2873

The Judicial Panel denied Defendants’ motion to transfer Middlesex Water Co., which did not on its face raise aqueous foam-related claims, to the MDL in South Carolina. The Panel noted the claims at issue involved the manufacture and sale of PFAS more generally and expressed concern that granting transfer would render the MDL unduly complicated and unmanageable.

December 18, 2019 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (D.S.C.)