In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders the transfer of four Alabama actions, a City of Fresno action, and two State of Maine actions to the District of South Carolina for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 2873. The Panel concludes that the actions overlap with existing MDL proceedings involving AFFF-related PFAS contamination of the same water supplies or sites, making transfer appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The order rejects arguments that the actions involve only non-AFFF sources, that pending remand proceedings or discovery create obstacles to transfer, or that transfer would improperly broaden the MDL.

Holdings

1. The actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact with actions already transferred to MDL No. 2873, and transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
2. Complete overlap in allegedly impacted wells and water sources is not required; transfer may be warranted when the same water supply is alleged to be contaminated by AFFF and is also at issue in actions pending in the MDL.
3. The Panel will not conduct a merits review of the complaints based on the level of detail in plaintiffs' pre-suit investigations or characterize allegations as conclusory for purposes of deciding transfer.
4. Pending remand motions, a related appeal concerning federal-officer removal, and limited discovery in the transferor courts do not preclude transfer when centralization would further the expeditious resolution of the litigation as a whole.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Panel should vacate prior conditional transfer orders for the Alabama, Fresno, and Maine actions because the actions purportedly involved only non-AFFF sources of PFAS contamination.
2. Whether factual overlap involving the same water supplies or contamination sites is sufficient to warrant transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 without requiring complete overlap of wells or sources.
3. Whether pending remand motions, an appeal concerning federal-officer removal, or discovery already conducted in the transferor courts made transfer inappropriate.
4. Whether transferring the actions would improperly expand MDL No. 2873 into a broader PFAS multidistrict litigation.

Disposition

other