Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS—D. Conn.: Water utility unsuccessful in moving PFAS class action to federal court, (Sep 30, 2024)

By Colleen M. Svelnis, J.D.

The Connecticut federal district court remanded the action—where plaintiffs had asserted state-law claims based on statutes governing products liability and unfair trade practices—to state court.

The Connecticut federal district court granted a motion to move a class action suit against Connecticut Water Co., a utility company that operates multiple public water supply systems in Connecticut, to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The suit alleged that the utility knowingly supplied consumers with water contaminated by perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) in concentrations severe enough to be dangerous to human health. The plaintiffs had asserted state-law claims based on Connecticut statutes governing products liability and unfair trade practices; however, the defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed due to a federal question embedded in the plaintiffs' claims. The federal district court in Connecticut found that the defendant failed to show that there was a federal issue raised. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the case should be transferred to a multi-district litigation (MDL) handling similar cases (Hoffnagle v. Connecticut Water Co., No. 3:23-CV-1489 (OAW) (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2024)).

The burden of proof showing that there is federal subject matter jurisdiction is on the party seeking to bring a case in federal court. While a plaintiff generally is entitled to bring their case in the court of their choosing, a federal statute gives a defendant the ability to remove a case from state court to federal court if the plaintiff could have brought the case in federal court. The court noted that, although “exceedingly rare,” a case may be removed even if the complaint itself does not relate to federal law, but the claims nonetheless arise under federal law.

In this case, it was the defendant’s burden to justify its removal of this action, and “in order to do that, Defendant must show that there is a federal issue embedded within Plaintiffs’ claims that is ‘(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.’”

The utility asserted that it had carried its burden because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates drinking water pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and therefore resolution of the class’s claims necessitated analysis of federal statutes and regulations. Moreover, the utility argued that the EPA does not regulate PFAS in water supplied by utility companies, and so the actual dispute here was a lawsuit against the company for complying with federal regulations. Thus, according to the utility, the federal issue actually was disputed and substantial. Finally, Connecticut Water asserted that this federal court could hear this dispute without disrupting traditional principles of comity.

The judge called this argument “fatally flawed in several respects,” concluding that the utility failed to show that there was a federal issue necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

It was unclear which federal issue must be resolved in considering the class’s claims. To accept the utility's position would amount to finding that no individual ever can bring a state-law products liability claim against a water utility, which is tantamount to finding that the SDWA completely preempts state water regulations.

Moreover, the utility concedes that there are no relevant federal regulations applicable to it. Thus, the judge writes, the federal issue appears to be that there is, in fact, no federal issue.

Further, the utility failed to satisfy the four-part jurisdictional test. The federal issue clearly was not substantial, and could be entirely excised from the case and still leave the class’s claims intact. The SDWA does not regulate its provision of drinking water. One could assume that this fact was a significant reason why the plaintiffs were suing under state law instead, which the class argued imposed a duty upon the utility whereas federal law did not. The judge noted that the class’s claims might be litigated entirely without reference to the SDWA.

The case is No. 3:23-CV-1489 (OAW).

Judge: Williams, O.

Attorneys: David S. Golub (Silver Golub & Teitell LLP) for Frances Hoffnagle and Lori Monroe. Neal Lewis Moskow (Moskow Law Group LLC) for Connecticut Water Co.

Companies: Connecticut Water Co.

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews ChemicalNews ClassActLitigationNews ConnecticutNews