Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 05/01/2021 at 10:31:04 (UTC).

Todd v. 3M Company, The et al

Case Summary

On March 01, 2021, Michael Todd (“Plaintiff”), represented by Shannon M Pennock of Pennock Law Firm, filed a personal injury lawsuit against 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Chemguard Inc., Tyco Fire Products L.P., National Foam, Inc., BASF Corporation represented by Delia G Frazier of DLA Piper LLP, John R Wellschlager of DLA Piper LLP, and others, seeking compensatory and punitive damages with interest for bodily injury arising from the alleged intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of South Carolina with Judge Richard M. Gergel presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged on information and belief that “by the early 1980s, Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, among other things, that: (a) PFOA and PFOS are toxic; and (b) when sprayed in the open environment per the instructions given by the manufacturer, PFOA and PFOS readily migrate through the subsurface, mix easily with groundwater, resist natural degradation, render drinking water unsafe and/or non-potable, and can be removed from public drinking water supplies only at substantial expense.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged on information and belief that “U.S. Navy has stored and used Defendants’ AFFF containing PFOA or PFOS chemicals and/or their precursor chemicals in firefighter training and response exercises, including at the Naval Support Activity Mid-South Naval Base, located in Millington, Tennessee” and that “during Plaintiff’s exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products containing PFOA and/or PFOS and/or their precursor chemicals, Plaintiff ingested such products, and the PFOA and/or PFOS and/or their precursor chemicals entered Plaintiff’s body.  At no point during his trainings or career did Plaintiff receive any warning that Defendants’ AFFF products containing PFOA and/or PFOS and/or their precursor chemicals were toxic or carcinogenic. On June 17, 2008, Plaintiff’s doctors diagnosed Plaintiff with testicular cancer… On or after March 3, 2020, Plaintiff discovered that his testicular cancer may have been caused by exposure to AFFF and PFOA and PFOS.”

 

There are eight causes of action laid down by the Plaintiff. The first cause of action relates to product liability as Defendants were allegedly regularly engaged in the design, formulation, production, creation, making, construction, assembly, rebuilding, sale, distribution, preparation, and labeling, of fluorochemical products., defective design of the fluorochemical products and consumer expectations of not being able to reasonably discover the defects and risks associated with the use of fluorochemical products. The second cause of action relates to Products Liability, defective design and Risk Utility associated with fluorochemical products. The third cause of action has been laid down for strict product liability and failure to warn. The fourth claim relates to negligence, the fifth cause of action is for concealment, misrepresentation and fraud, the sixth for negligence per se, seventh for past and continuing trespass and battery, and the eighth claim relates to negligent, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to pass an order to award compensatory and punitive damages with interest in addition to costs of litigation including fee for attorneys and expert witnesses.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-00609

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    South Carolina District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Richard M Gergel

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Michael Todd

Defendants

DuPont de Nemours Inc

3M Company, The

Dynax Corporation

Buckeye Fire Equipment Company

Chemours Company, The

Dowdupont Inc

BASF Corporation

National Foam Inc

Kidde-Fenwal Inc

Arkema Inc

AGC Chemicals Americas Inc

ChemDesign Products Incorporated

Tyco Fire Products LP

EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company

Clariant Corporation

Corteva Inc

Chemours Company FC LLC, The

Chemguard Inc

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Shannon M Pennock

Attorney at Pennock Law Firm

411 Lafayette Street, Fl 6

New York, NY 10003

Defendant Attorneys

John R Wellschlager

Attorney at DLA Piper LLP US MD

6225 Smith Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21209

Delia G Frazier

Attorney at DLA Piper LLP US - Atlanta

One Atlantic Center, 1201 W Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309

 

Court Documents

#2

(#2) Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (sshe, ) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9683206.), filed by Michael Todd. Service due by 6/1/2021(sshe, ) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2021
  • Docket(#3) MDL MEMBER CASE OPENED: (Direct-filed), Todd v. 3M Company et al, as DSC case 2:21-cv-609-RMG Plaintiff Home Venue: Eastern Tennessee (sshe, ) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (sshe, ) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9683206.), filed by Michael Todd. Service due by 6/1/2021(sshe, ) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AGC Chemical Americas, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where DowDuPont Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Dupont De Nemours Inc is a litigant