IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION; KEVIN D. HARDWICK v. 3M COMPANY; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC - Articles

All Content

IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION; KEVIN D. HARDWICK v. 3M COMPANY; E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; ARKEMA FRANCE, S.A.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; SOLVAY SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 27, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Paul D. Clement, CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Aaron M. Herzig, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Daniel L. Ring, Joshua D. Yount, Michael A. Scodro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Andrew J. Pincus, Nicole A. Saharsky, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., Richard D. Schuster, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shawn J. Organ, Erik J. Clark, ORGAN LAW LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Lanny S. Kurzweil, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, Kristofor T. Henning, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Scott A. Chesin, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, New York, New York, Matthew S. Brown, CARLILE PATCHEN & MURPHY LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Peter C. Condron, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., Ronald S. Kopp, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, Akron, Ohio, Melanie Black Dubis, Charles Raynal PARKER POE, Raleigh, North Carolina, James A. King, PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Daniel A. Spira, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Jaren Janghorbani, Theodore V. Wells Jr., Daniel J. Toal, Crystal Lohmann Parker, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, New York, New York, Theodore M. Grossman, JONES DAY, New York, New York, Louis A. Chaiten, James R. Saywell, JONES DAY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Aaron M. Herzig, Robert A. Bilott, William E. Braff, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, David J. Butler, Jonathan N. Olivito, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis. The gravamen of Kevin Hardwick’s complaint is that his bloodstream contains trace quantities of five chemicals—which are themselves part of a family of thousands of chemicals whose usage is nearly ubiquitous in modern life. Hardwick does not know what companies manufactured the particular chemicals in his bloodstream; nor does he know, or indeed have much idea, whether those chemicals might someday make him sick; nor, as a result of those chemicals, does he have any sickness or symptoms now. Yet, of the thousands of companies that have manufactured chemicals of this general type over the past half-century, Hardwick has chosen to sue the ten defendants present here. His allegations regarding those defendants are both collective—rarely does he allege an action by a specific defendant—and conclusory. Yet Hardwick sought to represent a class comprising nearly every person “residing in the United States”—a class from which, under Civil Rule 23(c), nobody could choose to opt out. And as relief for his claims, Hardwick asked the district court to appoint a “Science Panel”—whose conclusions, he said, “shall be deemed definitive and binding on all the parties[.]”

The district court, for its part, certified a class comprising every person residing in the State of Ohio—some 11.8 million people. The defendants now appeal that order, arguing (among many other things) that Hardwick lacks standing to bring this case. We agree with that argument, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.

Attachments: