2:18-mn-02873
D.S.C.Aug 22, 2025Background
- The case is part of the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina.
- Plaintiffs allege personal injuries resulting from exposure to PFAS chemicals, either from AFFF, drinking water, or turnout gear.
- Some plaintiffs are attempting to avoid federal jurisdiction by omitting or disclaiming exposure to AFFF in their pleadings.
- The Court previously issued Case Management Order 35 addressing the management of personal injury cases.
- Recent circuit precedent (State of Maryland v. 3M) clarifies the validity of defendants' federal officer removal and jurisdiction theories based on intermingled PFAS sources.
- The Court suggests transferring all related cases (including turnout gear claims) to this MDL for efficient management.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avoiding MDL/federal jurisdiction by omitting AFFF exposure | Claims harm from PFAS but not specifically AFFF to avoid MDL | PFAS from military & non-military AFFF are inextricably linked; exposure cannot be so isolated | Court rejects artful pleading and finds federal jurisdiction plausible |
| Basis for federal officer removal | Asserts disclaimer of AFFF means no federal basis | Removal proper if conduct plausibly relates to federal work, per Maryland v. 3M | Court credits defendant's theory, removal appropriate |
| Remand procedures | Would remand based on disclaimers/omissions | Opposes remand, argues all PFAS claims intermingled | Court will set remand procedures later, no immediate remand |
| Transfer and management of related cases | No specific argument mentioned | Requests centralized management of all related cases | Court recommends transfer to efficiently manage all related cases |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Maryland v. 3M et al., 130 F.4th 380 (4th Cir. 2025) (federal officer removal is proper where PFAS exposures from AFFF and non-AFFF sources cannot be isolated)
- Gov't of Puerto Rico v. Express Scripts, Inc., 119 F.4th 174 (1st Cir. 2024) (court must credit removing defendant’s theory of removal)
- Baker v. Atl. Richfield Co., 962 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2020) (defendant’s removal theory should be credited at the pleading stage)
- Cnty. Bd. of Arlington Cnty., Virginia v. Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., 996 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2021) (standard for federal officer removal jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (standard for plausible basis justifying removal to federal court)