Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 17-3942 (2d Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

This case arose from defendants' ownership in a manufacturing facility that used and disposed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) which contaminated the water supply in the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

For the reasons discussed in the Second Circuit's opinion issued on the same day in Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Nos. 17-3941, etc., which was argued in tandem with the present appeal and involved the same issues, the court rejected defendants' contentions that the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of personal injury and requests for medical monitoring as relief for such injuries, and in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of property damage. The court held that the district court's ruling that medical monitoring is available relief for claims solely of property damage is not an order that meets the criteria for immediate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Therefore, the court dismissed, as improvidently allowed, so much of the appeal as seeks reversal of that part of the district court's order.

Download PDF

17-3942-cv Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ------ 4 August Term, 2018 5 (Argued: April 17, 2019 Decided: May 18, 2020) 6 7 Docket No. 17-3942* ______________________________________________________________ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MICHELE BAKER; CHARLES CARR; ANGELA CORBETT; PAMELA FORREST; MICHAEL HICKEY, individually and as parent and natural guardian of O.H., infant; KATHLEEN MAINLINGENER; KRISTIN MILLER, as parent and natural guardian of K.M., infant; JAMES MORIER; JENNIFER PLOUFFE; SILVIA POTTER, individually and as parent and natural guardian of K.P., infant; and DANIEL SCHUTTIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 15 - v. - 16 17 18 SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL INC., * This appeal was consolidated for oral argument with the appeals in Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Nos. 17-3941, etc., and R.M. Bacon, LLC v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 18-2018, which are resolved today in separate decisions. 1 2 Defendants-Appellants.** ______________________________________________________________ 3 Before: KEARSE, POOLER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. 4 In this action, commenced as a class action by residents of the Village of 5 Hoosick Falls, New York, defendants--the owner and a past owner of a 6 manufacturing facility using a chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), and 7 disposing of that chemical in a manner that contaminated the water supply in the 8 Village--appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from so much of an order of the 9 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Lawrence E. Kahn, 10 Judge, as denied their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs' (1) 11 claims of negligence and strict liability for (a) personal injury in the nature of 12 accumulation of PFOA in the blood, thereby increasing risks of various types of 13 illness, and (b) damage to property; (2) claims of trespass and nuisance for 14 contamination of water in privately owned wells; and (3) requests for the costs of 15 medical monitoring as consequential damages for (a) personal injury or (b) damage 16 to property, see Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 232 F.Supp.3d 233 17 (2017). For the reasons discussed in our opinion issued today in Benoit v. Saint-Gobain ** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform with the above. 2 1 Performance Plastics Corp., Nos. 17-3941, etc., which was argued in tandem with the 2 present appeal and involved the same issues, we reject defendants' contentions that 3 the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of 4 personal injury and requests for medical monitoring as relief for such injuries, and in 5 denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of property damage. We conclude 6 that the district court's ruling that medical monitoring is available relief for claims 7 solely of property damage is not an order that meets the criteria for immediate review 8 under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and we thus dismiss, as improvidently allowed, so much 9 of the appeal as seeks reversal of that part of the district court's order. 10 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 11 12 13 14 15 STEPHEN G. SCHWARZ, Rochester, New York (Faraci Lange, Rochester, New York; Robin L. Greenwald, James J. Bilsborrow, William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, New York, New York, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees. 16 17 18 19 20 21 SHEILA L. BIRNBAUM, New York, New York (Mark S. Cheffo, Bert L. Wolff, Lincoln Davis Wilson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, New York; Dechert, New York, New York, on briefs), for Defendant-Appellant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. 22 23 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, Washington, D.C. (Michael D. Daneker, Elissa J. Preheim, Washington, 3 1 2 3 D.C.; Jennifer R. Kwapisz, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, New York, New York, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellant Honeywell International Inc. 4 5 6 Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York (Vivian H.W. Wang, of counsel), filed a brief as Amicus Curiae, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. 7 8 9 Public Justice, Denver, Colorado (Neil Levine, of counsel), filed a brief as Amicus Curiae, in support of PlaintiffsAppellees. 10 11 12 13 Reed Smith, New York, New York (Oliver Beiersdorf, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. & National Association of Manufacturers, in support of Defendants-Appellants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Alston & Bird, Charlotte, North Carolina (David Venderbush, New York, New York; Brian D. Boone, Charlotte, North Carolina, of counsel), filed a brief for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and The Business Council for New York State, Inc., in support of Defendants-Appellants. 21 PER CURIAM: 22 The present action is a class action--in which there have as yet been no 23 class certifications--whose putative classes include all individual owners or renters 24 of real property within the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York (the "Village"), and 25 anyone who consumed water from the Village and exhibits a heightened level of the 26 toxic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") in the blood, see Baker v. Saint-Gobain 4 1 Performance Plastics Corp., 232 F.Supp.3d 233, 236 & n.1, 256 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) 2 ("Baker I"). The complaint alleges that defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics 3 Corp. and Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc., respectively the 4 owner and a past owner of a manufacturing facility in the Village, negligently used 5 and disposed of PFOA in a manner that contaminated the Village's water supply. 6 Defendants appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from so much of an order of the 7 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Lawrence E. Kahn, 8 Judge, as denied their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal of plaintiffs' 9 (1) claims of negligence and strict liability (a) for personal injury in the nature of 10 accumulation of PFOA in the blood, thereby increasing risks of various types of 11 illness, and (b) for damage to property; (2) claims of trespass and nuisance for 12 contamination of water in privately owned wells; and (3) requests for the costs of 13 medical monitoring as consequential damage for (a) personal injury or (b) damage to 14 property, see Baker I, 232 F.Supp.3d at 252-53, 256-57. 15 This appeal was argued in tandem with two others that are decided 16 today, including Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Nos. 17-3941, etc., --- 17 F.3d --- (2d Cir. 2020) ("Benoit II"). Benoit II was a consolidated appeal from orders in 18 16 actions before Judge Kahn, brought by residents of the Village who asserted the 5 1 same categories of claims as those asserted in the present action, see, e.g., Benoit v. 2 Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2017 WL 3316132, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017) 3 ("Benoit I"). Defendants' motion to dismiss claims in the present action contained the 4 same arguments that defendants made in moving to dismiss the complaints in 5 Benoit I; the district court's decisions in this case and those cases were the same, see, 6 e.g., id. at *6, *13; and defendants' arguments in the present appeal challenging the 7 court's Baker I denial of their motion to dismiss are virtually identical to those they 8 have made in their appeal challenging the parallel orders entered in Benoit I. 9 For the reasons discussed in Benoit II, we conclude that the district court 10 in the present case properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims 11 for personal injury, property damage, trespass, and private nuisance, and for medical 12 monitoring with respect to personal injuries; and that the court's ruling that costs of 13 medical monitoring can be awarded on the basis solely of injury to property is not a 14 ruling that meets the criteria for immediate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 15 Accordingly, the appeal from so much of the order of the district court 16 as ruled that medical monitoring is available relief for a claim of property damage is 17 dismissed as improvidently granted under § 1292(b). In all other respects, the denial 18 of defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is affirmed. 6

Primary Holding

In light of Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Second Circuit rejected defendants' contentions that the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of personal injury and requests for medical monitoring as relief for such injuries, and in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of property damage.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.