Opinion
2:23-cv-01596-CDS-EJY
10-13-2023
ESTATE OF KARL J. BEEMAN, SR. by and through Special Administrator and heir Benita Beeman; BENITA BEEMAN an individual; KARL J. BEEMAN, JR an individual, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION; MARKEN ENTERPRISES (also known as MarKen PPE Restoration); STEAMATIC OF SOUTHERN NEVADA (a Nevada corporation); LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants.
Kelly A. Evans, Esq. (SBN 7691) Chad R. Fears, Esq. (SBN 6970) Attorneys for Defendant 3M Company Richard F. Scotti, Esq. (SBN 4744) Nicholas V. Scotti, Esq. (SBN 15634) Paul S. Padda, Esq. (SBN 10417) PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Anastasia Palvios, Esq. (SBN 15795) PF LAW FIRM, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kelly A. Evans, Esq. (SBN 7691) Chad R. Fears, Esq. (SBN 6970) Attorneys for Defendant 3M Company
Richard F. Scotti, Esq. (SBN 4744) Nicholas V. Scotti, Esq. (SBN 15634) Paul S. Padda, Esq. (SBN 10417) PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Anastasia Palvios, Esq. (SBN 15795) PF LAW FIRM, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (FIRST REQUEST)
Pursuant to LR 6-1 and 6-2, Defendant 3M Company (hereinafter, “3M”), and Plaintiffs Estate of Karl J. Beeman, Sr., Benita Beeman and Karl J. Beeman, Jr., (“Plaintiffs” and with 3M collectively the “Parties”) by and through their respective counsel, hereby respectfully requests the below extension of time to respond to the Complaint.
1. This action was initially filed on May 22, 2023 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, bearing Case No. A-23-871098-C, but before serving 3M, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on September 7, 2023. 3M was served on September 14, 2023, and removed this action to this Court on October 5, 2023.
2. The Complaint seeks to hold Defendants liable for their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, formulating, marketing, distributing, and/or selling products, including aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”), allegedly containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), including perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”). Compl. ¶¶ 1,3. The Complaint alleges that the use of and exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF caused injury to Plaintiff Karl Beeman, Sr. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
3. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) has consolidated cases related to PFAS-containing AFFF in In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (the “AFFF MDL”), in the District of South Carolina, in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.
4. On October 6, 2023, 3M filed a notice of potential tag-along in the JPML, identifying this case as a potential tag-along action to the AFFF MDL. The tag-along notice is currently pending in the JPML.
5. To date, the JPML has never declined to order transfer to the AFFF MDL of a case in which, as here, the operative complaint on its face alleges AFFF claims.
6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2)(C), 3M's responsive pleading is due October 12, 2023.
7. Good cause exists for an extension of responsive pleading deadlines for all Defendants through and including the 28th day after the JPML has issued a final order determining whether to transfer this action to the AFFF MDL. An extension would conserve judicial resources, as well as the resources of the Parties, and would not result in prejudice to any party if granted.
8. Plaintiffs expressly reserve, and do not waive, any rights they may have to seek remand of this matter back to state court.
9. Counsel for 3M met and conferred in good faith with counsel for Plaintiffs, who agrees to the requested extension for the simple purpose of providing more time to respond to the complaint. Plaintiffs do not admit, consent or agree as to what may or may not happen as to the MDL
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter an order granting an extension of responsive pleading deadlines for all Defendants, as set forth above, through and including the 28th day after the JPML has issued a final order determining whether to transfer this action to the AFFF MDL.
IT IS SO STIPULATED
EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS
SCOTTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.