PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

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

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

Judge Denies New Mexico’s Request to Seek Injunction in PFAS MDL

In the South Carolina AFFF MDL, parties must obtain approval to seek a preliminary injunction. New Mexico wanted a preliminary injunction that would require the U.S. Air Force to begin efforts to address groundwater PFAS contamination in the state. But, the Court denied New Mexico’s request for leave to seek an injunction, noting that a contrary outcome would frustrate the efficiency of the AFFF MDL and “derail a centralized proceeding.”

September 3, 2020 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (D.S.C.)

Judge Keeps Putative Class Action Against 3M in New Jersey

In a putative class action alleging 3M hid evidence of PFAS toxicity, 3M asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to transfer the case to Minnesota federal court. Although the proposed class will likely include a fair number of New Jersey residents, the Court found that balancing private and public interest factors favored remaining in New Jersey and denied 3M’s motion to transfer.

August 31, 2020 | In re: 3M Company Securities Litigation, No. 19:15982 (CCC) (D.N.J.)

Michigan Suit Against PFAS Manufacturers Survives Multiple Motions to Dismiss

Michigan’s state court case against manufacturers of PFAS-containing products other than AFFF will move into discovery, after the presiding Circuit Court judge ultimately ruled in the State’s favor on eight of nine motions to dismiss.

August 21, 2020 | Nessel v. 3M Co., et al., No. 20:03366-NZ (Mich. Cir. Ct.)

Michigan AG Sues PFAS Manufacturers Over Contamination

Michigan’s Attorney General filed two lawsuits—one in state court and one in federal court—against PFAS manufacturers. The state court complaint targets manufacturers of commercial-grade AFFF who sold product into Michigan, and the federal suit targets manufacturers of military-grade AFFF. The suits seek damages and injunctive relief for “widespread” PFAS contamination in the State.

August 20, 2020 | Federal Suit: Michigan v. E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Co., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00787 (W.D. Mich.); State Suit