87 F.4th 315
6th Cir.2023Background
- The suit concerns PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), a family of thousands of chemicals widely used since the 1950s and detectable at trace levels in most Americans.
- Plaintiff Kevin Hardwick, a former firefighter who used PFAS-containing fire‑fighting foams, had blood tests showing five PFAS compounds; he does not know which companies made the foams he used or whether those foams contained the specific PFAS found.
- Hardwick sued ten corporate defendants, alleging generally that “Defendants” manufactured, promoted, and released PFAS that contaminated his blood; his allegations rarely identify actions by any specific defendant.
- Hardwick moved to certify a nationwide, mandatory class; the district court certified an Ohio-only class of about 11.8 million people under Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants appealed under Rule 23(f).
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and held Hardwick lacks Article III standing because he failed to plausibly plead traceability to each defendant: his allegations were collective and conclusory and did not tie any defendant to the five PFAS in his blood.
- The court vacated the class certification order and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (traceability) | Hardwick: presence of PFAS in his blood plausibly caused by defendants’ manufacture/release of PFAS generally | Defendants: plaintiff fails to allege that any defendant likely caused the particular PFAS in his blood | Held: No standing — plaintiff did not plausibly trace his injury to each defendant |
| Pleading sufficiency for traceability | Hardwick: complaint gives fair notice that defendants’ PFAS caused injury | Defendants: allegations are collective and conclusory, not plausibly specific | Held: Complaint is conclusory under Twombly/Iqbal and fails to plead plausible causation |
| Effect of class action on standing | Hardwick: class posture does not defeat his claims | Defendants: class status does not relieve plaintiff of individual traceability requirement | Held: Class action adds nothing to standing; plaintiff must individually show traceability |
| Consideration of record vs pleadings for standing | Hardwick: standing determined from pleadings at this stage | Defendants: court should consider fuller record | Held: Court resolved standing on pleadings and undisputed facts; pleadings were sufficient to decide lack of traceability |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (traceability requires that the plaintiff’s injury was likely caused by the defendant)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden follows ordinary allocation of proof at successive litigation stages)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to survive pleading standards)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing is not dispensed in gross)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing requires particularized showing that plaintiff is entitled to adjudication of asserted claims)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (class action status does not eliminate individual standing requirements)
- Fox v. Saginaw Cnty., 67 F.4th 284 (6th Cir. 2023) (standing principles applied in the Sixth Circuit; class action does not alter standing analysis)
- Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008) (standing requires particularized factual showing tying plaintiff’s injury to defendant)