The Panel held that transfer serves the convenience of parties and witnesses and promotes efficient conduct of the litigation, despite the fact that the municipal plaintiffs explicitly disavow claims relating to AFFF use or disposal.
The City of Fresno alleges its water supply was contaminated by per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances from local metal stripping and electroplating firms. The city’s complaint seeks recovery for PFAS contamination throughout its system, which necessarily encompasses a known AFFF-contaminated well.
3M identified multiple personal injury plaintiffs in eighteen MDL actions who allege they were exposed to AFFF-contaminated drinking water supplied by the City of Fresno.
Similarly, the Alabama actions involve public water providers alleging contamination from carpet manufacturing in Dalton, Georgia, and metal plating businesses. The Panel found that 3M had identified MDL plaintiffs who alleged they drank water from these Alabama providers and that the PFAS stemmed from AFFF use.
The Panel rejected arguments that the actions should remain separate because they focus on non-AFFF sources. It concluded that the overlap in water supplies creates duplicative discovery regarding the source of PFAS contamination, justifying centralized pretrial proceedings.
The Panel also declined to create a de minimis exception for transfer or to characterize the MDL plaintiffs' allegations as conclusory. It noted that transfer does not alter the scope of the AFFF litigation, which remains limited to claims for harm caused by AFFF manufacture, use, or disposal.