Suez Water New York Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-10731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Suez Water v. E.I. Du Pont, Judge Liman denied SUEZ’s request for immediate appeal of dismissed claims.
SUEZ Water New York Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, and The Chemours Company; the case continued on the defective-design claim against Old DuPont, while SUEZ could not obtain immediate partial final judgment for an appeal of the dismissed claims.
What happened
Suez Water New York Inc. sued E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours Company over alleged PFAS and PFOA contamination of its water systems. In an earlier order, the court dismissed most claims with prejudice but allowed a design-defect claim against Old DuPont to continue.
SUEZ asked the court to enter a final judgment on the dismissed claims so it could appeal them before the remaining claim was resolved. The court denied the request because the claims involved overlapping facts, the same alleged harm and damages, and the same central question of whether the defendants substantially caused SUEZ’s injury.
The court also found that SUEZ had not shown that delaying an appeal would create sufficient hardship or injustice. Judge Lewis J. Liman therefore denied the motion for partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
The detailed version
- Suez Water New York Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company · No. 1:20-cv-10731
- Lewis Liman
- May 1, 2023
Background
Suez Water New York Inc. (SUEZ) alleged that E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours Company manufactured and sold substances containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). SUEZ alleged that industrial manufacturers disposed of those materials in ways that allowed them to enter SUEZ’s watershed, contaminating its water systems. SUEZ claimed that it had to improve its water-treatment infrastructure to comply with New York’s maximum contaminant level for PFOA.
SUEZ’s second amended complaint asserted five causes of action: public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence, trespass, and defective design. In a March 22, 2023 order, the court dismissed with prejudice the public- and private-nuisance, negligence, and trespass claims against both defendants, as well as the defective-design claim against Chemours. The court allowed the defective-design claim against Old DuPont to continue.
Motion for Partial Final Judgment
SUEZ moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of partial final judgment on the dismissed claims. Rule 54(b) can allow a district court to enter a final judgment on fewer than all claims or parties when the claims are sufficiently separate and there is no just reason to delay an appeal. The rule is an exception to the general practice of waiting until all claims have been resolved and is intended to avoid unnecessary piecemeal appeals.
Separable Claims
The court held that SUEZ had not shown that the dismissed claims were sufficiently separate from the surviving defective-design claim. Although the claims involved different legal theories and different stages of the alleged wrongdoing, they arose from the same alleged harm: pollution of SUEZ’s water systems. The claims also sought the same damages, including the costs of installing, operating, maintaining, and monitoring water-treatment systems.
The claims additionally shared the central issue of substantial-factor causation—whether the defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing SUEZ’s injury. The court explained that this issue would be important both in any appeal of the dismissed claims and in discovery and trial on the surviving claim. Resolving the surviving claim could therefore affect or make unnecessary an appeal involving the dismissed claims.
Reason for Delay
The court separately concluded that SUEZ had not shown there was no just reason to delay an appeal. SUEZ argued that an immediate appeal could avoid duplicative discovery and a second trial if the dismissed claims were reinstated. The court recognized that possibility but stated that the risk of multiple trials exists whenever some claims are dismissed and others survive. It concluded that immediate appellate review would create additional work and could require successive appellate panels to consider overlapping issues.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied SUEZ’s motion for entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b). The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for that motion. The order did not change the earlier dismissal of the dismissed claims or the continued existence of the defective-design claim against Old DuPont.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.