The People Of The State Of California v. 3M Company

Background

The State of California was one of nine plaintiffs whose actions had been conditionally transferred for inclusion in multidistrict litigation concerning aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). The plaintiffs asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to vacate the conditional transfer orders. They argued that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking and that their pending requests to remand, or return, the actions to state court should be decided before any transfer.

The California action was brought against 3M Company and other defendants. The panel also considered arguments from the City of Philadelphia that its action involved PFAS contamination from sources beyond AFFF, as well as arguments that transfer could cause delay or inconvenience. Those additional arguments concerned the other actions listed in the transfer order.

The Panel’s Analysis

The panel held that jurisdictional objections generally did not prevent transfer. It explained that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and does not decide the case’s jurisdiction or merits. The panel stated that the district court where an action was originally pending could decide a remand motion before the transfer became effective. If that court granted remand, the panel said, the conditional transfer order would be vacated because no federal civil action would remain to be transferred.

The panel also rejected the argument that transfer would necessarily delay remand decisions. It noted that the transferee court had procedures for presenting remand arguments after transfer and had previously decided a remand motion in an action recently transferred to the multidistrict litigation. The panel stated that plaintiffs were entitled to rulings on their remand motions and expressed confidence that the transferee court would address them in due course.

The panel found that the actions shared factual questions with the existing AFFF litigation, including questions about AFFF use and storage, PFAS toxicity and effects on human health, and the substances’ chemical properties and movement through groundwater. It concluded that transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Disposition

The panel ordered that all nine actions listed on Schedule A be transferred to the District of South Carolina and, with that court’s consent, assigned to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The order did not decide whether federal jurisdiction existed, whether the cases should ultimately be remanded to state court, or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The supplied case materials identify Haywood Gilliam as the judge, but the quoted opinion is a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer order and is signed by the panel chair, Karen K. Caldwell, rather than by Judge Gilliam.