Horsham Contamination Class Action Complaint

JS44
Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 3

(Rev.08/16)21~
CIVIL COVER SHEET
~
no~
~)ther
~y
The JS 44 civil co..

she
': t ':;information contained herein _neither replace
supplem.ent the fil_ing and service of plea.. mgs or
papers as required
law, except as
provided by local r s of. . t. . 11s form, approved by the Judicial Conference ot the Umted States 111 September 1974, 1s reqwred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
.0
purpose of initiating he CIVIi docket sheet (SHH JNSJ'R/ /( "1/0NS ON NhXT PAGF OF tHJS FORA4.)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(TN U.S. P/.AJNT!fF CASI'
NOTE:
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telep
IN LAND CONDEMN
ON CASES.
THE TRACT OF LAND I 1/0L VED.
umher)
Joseph L. Feliciani, Esquire/Creedon & Feliciani, P.C.

29 E. Marshall St., Norristown, PA 19401
(610) 239-9630
PARTIES (Place an
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an x" 1noneBox011!vJ

0 I
U.S. Government
0 3
Plainliff
CJ 2
Federal Question
(US. Ciovernmenr Not a Party)
Incoq>orated or Principal Place

of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
U.S. Government
Citizenship of Parties
Defendant
111
Item Ill)
CJ
Citizen or Subject o a
Forei n CountI
[J 110 Insurance
120Mmine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable lnstmme1
150 Recovery of Overpay
& Enforcement of Judgment
CJ 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Recove1y of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
0 160 Srockholde1~' Suits
l"l 190 Other Contract
0 195 Contract Product Liability
0 196 Franchise
PERSONAL JN.JlJRY
~ 365 Personal Injury -
0
0
CJ
0
Product Liability
Foreign Nation
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881

0 690 Other
0 423 Withdrawal
Pl1annaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
CJ 370 Other Fraud
0 37 l Truth in Lending
CJ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Producl Liability
422 Appeal 28
use 158
0 375 False Claims Act

0 376QuiTam(31 USC
28 USC 157
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vchicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal
PROPER'f\:'.,,RIG HTS
<:P 'OCfALiSEC JR.ITV
;;t411ifLl\BOR
0 861 HIA(l395ff)
0 710 Fair Labor Standards
IJ
0
CJ
0
Act
0 720 Labor/Management
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act
862
863
864
865
Black Lung (923)

DIWC/DIWW i405(g))
SSID Title XVI
RSI (405(g))
0 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
PRfS:~l'!IElt'PETITIO:NS ,,,: 0 791 Employee Retiremenl
, REAL 'PROPER'TiY:iJ:,
0 440
0 441
0 442
0 443
Other Civil Rights

Voting
Employment
Housing/
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
0 448 Education
0
0
0
0
0
I]
CJ
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Molions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)
0 871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609
Income Security Act
3729(a))
400 State Reappo1tionment
4 lO Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Conllpt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit
IJ 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 850 Securities/Commodities/
0
0
0
CJ
0
0
0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
~--------=--+-----'----''-...,.,;...,,~-=,,-----------10
0 210 Land Condemnation
0 220 Foreclosure
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectrnenl
0 240 T 011s to Land
0 245 Tort Product Liabili1y
LJ 290 All Other Real Property
0 367 Health Care/
CJ 330 Federal Employ rs"
'"X'" m One Bar.for l'laintiff
Exchange
0
0
0
0
890
891
893
895
Other Statutory Actions

Agricultural Acts
Environmental Matters
Freedom of Jnformatlon
Act
0 896 Arbitration
0 899 Administrative Procedure
Acl/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
0 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
0 462 Naturalization Application

0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
(Place an 'X" in One Box Only)
0 2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
0 5 Transferred from
Another District
(;pecifj;)
0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfor
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (D" n"t dtejuriwlicti1mal st11tute 11nless diversity):
28 U.S. Code
1332
Brief description of cause:
Diversity of Citizenship
VII.. REQUESTED IN
~ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.RCv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instrucl10m):
IFANY
mm
DOCKET NUMBER
~:.
DATE
10/13/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT#
AMOUNT
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
0 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT
1-3 Filed
10/13/16 Page 2 of 3
UNITEDDocument
STATES DISTRICT
COURT
THf:i~STRICT
FO_R
assign men
oa
r1
OF PENNSYLVANIA calendar.
DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
'29~ ()8'
Address of P aintiff: Ambler, PA 19002
~ ~ r
0
'
u
I I ii
\'JI
Address of Defendant:_-=3"'M,:.::__;C=:co=-=r:.cp:.::o"'r-=at.:.:e'-'H=-==e-=a:::;;d-=iq-=u-=ar::..:t:.::e=.:rs:.c.,.;:;3.::.;M.::.;_:C::..:e:=-n;;.:.te.::.:r:.c.,.;:;S.;.;t.-=P'--'a:::.:u=l,__,M===N:..:...::5-"5-"'1-"'44~-""'1"'0..::.0_:__0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: Montgomery and Bucks Counties, Pennsylvania
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation o
more of its stock?
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance_with.Eed.R.Civ.P. 7.l(a)) _

Does this case
involve_Illu~t!districtlitigafionp~s;ibllities?---~
RELATED CASE, IFANY:

Case Numl:i~;: 2:16-CV-04961-PBT
Judge Hon. Petrese B. Tucker
/.
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
/
I. ls this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within o~,year previously terminated action in this court?
YesD
_...,.-
No0
Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the s~.tran~as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
actlo -in-this..@.!!If?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - -
Nc0
Yes0
3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
YesD
terminated action in this court?
NolZl
4. ls this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
YesD
CIVIL: (Place
No0
Vin ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
A Federal Question Cases:
B.
I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
1. o Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2. o FELA
2. o Airplane Personal Injury
3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury
3. o Assault, Defamation
4. o Antitrust
4. o Marine Personal Injury
5.
Patent
_5. o,.,Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
6.
Labor-Management Relations
6
7.
~ther Personal Injury (Please specify)
0 ~roducts Liability
7.
Civil Rights
8.
Habeas Corpus
Products Liability -
9.
Securities Act(s) Cases
All other Diversity Cases
10.
Social Security Review Cases
11. o Al
Asbestos
(Please specify)
ther Federal Question Cases
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)
_,__......__+-----'---..._____________, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:

Pursuailt to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
I
0,000. 0 exclusive of interest and costs;
0
D
R ief other than monetary damages is sought.

October 13, 2016
ttorney-at-Law
32357
Attorney I.D.#
A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
except as noted above.
DATE: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609 (5/2012)
Attorney l.D.#

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene Lutz,
James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. Enwright, Barbara Ann
Garcia, Jeffrey Smith, Gloria Smith, and Kathleen M. Clapp
CIVIL ACTION
16
v.
The 3M Company (f/k/ a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.),
Angus Fire, The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Protection Company,
Chemguard, and National Foam
5380
NO.
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255.
( )
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
( )
(c) Arbitration- Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.
( )
(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
( )
(e) Special Management- Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
g
( )
(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
October 13, 2016
Date
(610) 239-9630
Telephone
Joseph L. Feliciani, Esquire
Attorney-at-law
(610) 239-1599
FAX Number
Plaintiffs
Attorney for
jfeliciani@cflawpc.com
officeadminl@cflawpc.com
E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660) 10/02
OCT 13 2016
Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 43
CREEDON & FELICIANI, P.C.

BY: JOSEPH L. FELICIANI, ESQUIRE
I.D. No. 32357
BY: HEATHER A. THOMAS, ESQUIRE
I. D. #: 201293
29 E. Marshall Street
Norristown, Pa. 19401
Phone: (610) 239-9630
Facsimile: 610-239-1599
e-mail: jfeliciani@cflawpc.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
13000
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina
:
Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene Lutz, James :
Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. :
Enwright, Barbara Ann Garcia, Jeffrey
: CIVIL ACTION
Smith, Gloria Smith, and Kathleen M.
:
Clapp
:
: NO.:
Plaintiffs
:
v.
:
The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota
:
Mining and Manufacturing Co.),
:
Angus Fire (a/k/a Angus
:
International)
:
Ansul (a/k/a Ansul Chemical
Company a/k/a The Ansul Company
a/k/a Ansul Fire Protection)
Buckeye Fire Protection Company,
Chemguard, and National Foam
Defendants
Plaintiffs, Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene
Lutz, James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. Enwright, Barbara Ann Garcia,
Jeffrey Smith, Gloria Smith, and Kathleen M. Clapp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, (hereinafter collectively referred to as Plaintiffs, by and
through their counsel, Creedon & Feliciani, P.C., as and for their complaint against
defendants, The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.),
Angus Fire, The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Protection Company, Chemguard,
and National Foam (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants allege as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring and property
damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated with toxic chemicals
resulting from Defendants harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting
foams (AFFF) and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or PFOS, which were released onto the ground, into
the environment and infiltrated the groundwater and Plaintiffs drinking/potable
water.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
1.
The Plaintiffs are all individuals who resided near and/or served and/or
worked on the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base- Willow Grove (hereinafter referred
to NASJRB-Willow Grove) and Naval Air Warfare Center (f/k/a Naval Air
Development Center, Johnsville). (NASJRB-Willow Grove and Naval Air Warfare
Center (f/k/a Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville are hereinafter referred to as
Bases)
2.
Plaintiff, Leonard Grande, is and adult individual residing at 998 Limekiln
Pike, Ambler, PA 19002 with water service provided by the Horsham Water and Sewer
Authority.
3.
Plaintiffs, Keith Clerkin and Dina Clerkin are husband and wife adult
individuals currently residing at 421 Bensol Road, Hatboro, PA 19040.

4.
From 1997 to 2013, the Clerkins resided at 10 Oxford Lane, Horsham, PA
19044 with water service provided by Horsham Water and Sewer Authority.
5.
Plaintiffs, Paul Lutz and Darlene Lutz, are husband and wife adult
individuals residing at 113 Sonoma Way, Macungie, PA.

6.
At all relevant times hereto, Mr. Lutz served in the United States Navy
and stationed at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and Mr. and
Mrs. Lutz consumed water provided on base and in cafs, restaurants, and other eating
and drinking establishments within the Affected Area.
7.
Plaintiffs, James Seacrease and Valarie Seacrease are husband and wife
adult individuals residing at 230 Heatherfield Drive, Souderton, PA 18964.

8.
Mr. and Mrs. Seacrease both served as civilian personnel on the Naval Air
Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and consumed water provided on base and in
cafs, restaurants, and other eating and drinking establishments within the Affected
Area.
9.
Plaintiff, Patrick D. Enwright, is an adult individual residing at 1561
Hartsville Circle, Warminster, PA 18974 and serviced by Warminster Water Authority.

10.
Plaintiff, Barbara Ann Garcia, is an adult individual residing at 9
Valentine Road, Ivyland, PA 19874 with water service provided by the Warminster
Water Authority.
11.
Plaintiffs, Jeffrey and Gloria Smith, are husband and wife adult
individuals residing at 1949 County Line Road, Warrington, PA with private well
water.
12.
Plaintiff, Kathleen M. Clapp, is an adult individual currently residing at
16474 Gloria Lane, Nokomis, Florida 34275 formerly residing at 585 Skyhawk Drive,
Warminster PA 18974 and 269 Gibson Avenue, Warminster, PA 18974 with water
service supplied by Warminster Water Authority and consumed water supplied on the
base at NADC JACKSONVILLE as well as in cafs, restaurants, and other eating and
drinking establishments within the Affected Area.
Defendants
22.
Defendant
The
3M
Company
(f/k/a
Minnesota
Mining
and
Manufacturing Company) ("3M") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55133.
23.
In the 1940s and 1950s, 3M began creating perfluorochemicals (PFCs)
and began incorporating them in their products after recognizing their beneficial
surfactant properties.
24.
In the early 1960s, 3M developed its aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
using the surfactant containing PFCs and began to market it under the brand name
Light Water.
25.
3M promoted and sold the AFFF for the purposes of preventing,
suppressing and extinguishing fires involving aviation fuel and other flammable
liquids.
26.
Through at least 2002, 3M manufactured and sold the AFFF containing
PFCs and fluorocarbon surfactants.

27.
Defendant Angus Fire (a/k/a Angus International) ("Angus") is part of
Angus International, and has corporate headquarters in Bentham, United Kingdom.

Angus Fire maintains a place of business in the United States at 141 Junny Road,
Angier, NC 27501.
28.
At all times relevant, Angus manufactured fire suppression products
including AFFF that contained PFCs including PFOS and/or related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to PFOA or PFOS.
29.
Defendant, Ansul (a/k/a Ansul Chemical Company a/k/a The Ansul
Company a/k/a Ansul Fire Protection) (hereinafter "Ansul") is a Wisconsin

corporation, having a principal place of business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, WI
54143.
30.
At all times relevant, Ansul manufactured fire suppression products,
including AFFF that contained PFCs including PFOS and/or related fluorochemicals
31.
Defendant, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company ("Buckeye") is a North
Carolina corporation, with its principal place of business at 110 Kings Road, Kings
Mountain, NC 28086.
32.
At all times relevant, Buckeye manufactured fire suppression
products, including AFFF that contained PFCs including PFOS and/or related
fluorochemicals that can degrade to PFOA or PFOS.
33.
Chemguard, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation, having a principal place of
business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, WI 54143.

34.
At all times relevant, Chemguard manufactured fire suppression
35.
National Foam, Inc. (a/k/a Chubb National Foam) (National
Foam, Inc. and Chubb National Foam are collectively referred to as "National Foam")
is a Pennsylvania corporation, having a principal place of business at 350 East Union
Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382.
36.
At all times relevant, National Foam manufactured fire suppression
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

37.
Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), because members of the proposed Plaintiff classes are citizens
of states different from at least some of Defendants' home states, and the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
38.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the
events or omissions by Defendants giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred
in this District, have caused harm to Class/Subclass Members residing in this District,
and Plaintiffs Leonard Grande, Keith Clerkin, Dina Clerkin, Paul Lutz, Darlene Lutz,
James Seacrease, Valarie Seacrease, Patrick D. Enwright, Barbara Ann Garcia, Jeffrey
Smith, and Gloria Smith, reside in this District.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
39.
All allegations, supra. are incorporated herein as if specifically set forth
herein at length.
40.
Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 (a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class consisting of all other
persons similarly situated as members of the proposed classes.
41.
Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class consisting of all other persons
similarly situated as members of the proposed classes/subclasses:
Class Members
All persons who own or occupy residential properties in the geographic
areas represented on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A (Affected

Area) and any and all military and/or civilian personnel who have
served/worked and/or are serving/working on the said Bases.
Subclasses:
Public Water Subclass
Current property owners who have resided in their current residence for
at least one year since 1970 and who obtain(ed) their drinking water from either:
Horsham Water and Sewer Authority, Warminster Public Authority, or
Warrington Township Water and Sewer Department.
Private Well Subclass
Current property owners who have resided within the Affected Area for
at least one year since 1970 and who obtain their drinking water from a private
well.
Non-Property Owner Subclass
Non-property owners who obtained their drinking water for at least a oneyear period from 1970 to the present from the Horsham Water and Sewer
Authority, Warminster Public Authority, or Warrington Township Water and
Sewer Department; from a well located on the Bases; or from a private well within
the Affected Area.
42.
The Public Water Subclass, Private Good Subclass and Non-Property
Owner Subclass are hereinafter referred to collectively as Subclasses.

43.
Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants, any entity or division in
which Defendants have a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers,
directors, assigns, and successors; (b) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's staff; (c) any State or any of its agencies; and (e) the cities, towns, boroughs,
townships of Horsham, Warminster, Warrington, Ivyland, Hatboro, Southampton and
Ambler and the respective water and sewer authorities/districts.
44.
The Class satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
predominance, and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Numerosity
45.
The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. The population in the Class Geographic Area is estimated to include

well over 70,000 residents. Plaintiffs believe that there are thousands of members of
the Class who own and/or occupy properties have been impacted by PFCs from
Defendants' AFFF as described herein. Members can be easily identified from public
records, such as property tax records, public water records, and other public records
and notified of the pendency of this action by mail, publication, or via other public
forums.
46.
In addition, members of the class also include the military and civilian
personnel who have served/have worked upon the bases which is estimated to
include well over 5,000 individuals. Members can be easily identified from service
records and/or employment records, other public records and notified of the
pendency of this action by mail, publication or via other public forums.
Typicality
43.
Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class
since all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants' conduct resulting
in injury to all members of the Class.
Adequate
Representation
44.
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of members of the
Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in civil actions including
environmental litigation.
45.
Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this
action on behalf of the Class/Subclasses and have the resources to do so.

46.
Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel has interests adverse to any of the
Classes/Subclasses.
Predominance of Common Questions
47.
Plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23(b)(3) because numerous
questions of law and fact common to class members predominate over any question
affecting only individual members. The answers to these common questions will
advance resolution of the litigation as to all class members. These common legal and
factual issues include:
a. Whether Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and members of the
Class/Subclasses and whether Defendants breached that duty;
b. Whether Defendants knew or should have known that their manufacture
of AFFF containing PFCs and perhaps other toxic chemicals was
unreasonably dangerous;
c. Whether Defendants knew or should have known that their AFFF
contained persistent, stable and mobile chemicals that were likely to
contaminate groundwater water supplies;
d. Whether Defendants failed to sufficiently warn purchasers and users of
the harm that could and did result from use of their products;
e. Whether Defendants became aware of health and environmental harm
caused by PFCs in their AFFF products and failed to warn purchasers,
users, Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses of same; and
f. Whether the members of the Classes/Subclasses have sustained damages
and the proper measure of damages.
g. Whether Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses for their actions;
10
Superiority
48.
A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all members is

impracticable.
49.
Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the
Class/Subclasses, thereby making appropriate final legal and equitable relief with
respect to the class/subclasses as a whole.
50.
Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation outweighs
the individual damages suffered by individual Class/Subclass members, making it

impossible for members of the Class/Subclasses to individually redress the wrongs
done to them.
51.
Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Subclass members
may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it
impossible for members of the Subclasses to individually redress the wrongs done to
them.
52.
Class treatment of common questions of law and fact will conserve the
resources of the courts and the litigants, and will promote consistency and efficiency of
adjudication.
53.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class
action.
11
RULE 23(c)(4)
CERTIFICATION OF PARTICULAR
ISSUES
54.
In the alternative to certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs
and the Class/Subclasses seek to maintain a class action with respect to particular issues
under Rule 23(c)(4).
55.
The adjudication of each Defendant's liability jointly and severally
involves issues and questions common to the entire Class/Subclasses, such that
certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) is appropriate.
GENERAL FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS
Background Regarding PFOS and PFOA
56.
All allegations, supra. are incorporated herein as if specifically set forth
herein at length.
57.
Poly-and perfluorinated alkyl substances (hereinafter referred to as
PFASs) have been in use for over sixty (60) years.

58.
In the 1940s and 1950s, Defendant, 3M Company, began creating
perfluorochemicals (PFCs) and began incorporating them in their products after

recognizing their beneficial surfactant properties.
59.
PFCs are manmade chemicals and do not exist naturally in nature.
60.
Perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid
(PFOS)
and
perfluorooctanoic
acid
(PFOA) are the two (2) most prevalent compounds of PFCs which contain numerous
12
chemicals.
61.
In the early 1960s, Defendant, 3M Company, engineered, designed and
developed its aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) using the surfactant containing
PFCs and began to market it under the brand name Light Water.
62.
The AFFF contained PFCs including PFOS and related fluorochemicals

63.
Defendant, 3M Company, promoted and sold the AFFF for the
purposes of preventing, suppressing and extinguishing fires involving aviation fuel

and other flammable liquids.
64.
Upon information and belief, it is averred that Defendants, Ansul,
Buckeye, Chemguard, and National Foam, also engineered, developed,

manufactured, marketed and sold AFFF contained PFCs including PFOS and related
65.
PFOS and PFOA have unique properties that cause them to be classified
as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

66.
Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of substances, such as
chemicals, in an organism.
67.
Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism absorbs a possibly toxic -
substance at a rate faster than that at which the substance is lost by catabolism and
excretion.
13
68.
PFOS and PFOA show persistence that make them an environmental
hazard.
69.
Due to the strength of multiple carbon- fluorine bonds, PFOS and
PFOA degrade very slowly in the environment.

70.
PFOS and PFOA are thermally, chemically, and biologically stable and
resistant to biodegradation, atmospheric oxidation caused by the action of light, direct

photolysis, and hydrolysis.
71.
PFOS and PFOA can remain in the environment for decades.
72.
PFOS and PFOA can leach through soil and infiltrate and pollute
groundwater and the environment.

73.
Once water is contaminated by PFOS or PFOA, it cannot be removed
by boiling the water or using chlorine and other disinfectants that are typically added
to public drinking water systems
74.
Toxicology studies show that PFOS and PFOA are readily absorbed after
oral exposure and accumulate primarily in the serum, kidney, and liver.
75.
PFOS and PFOA can bioaccumulate up the food chain; can cross the
placenta from mother to fetus and from mother to infant through breast feeding.
76.
Once ingested, PFOS and PFOA have a half-life within the human body
of 2 to 9 years.
77.
78.
PFOS and PFOA are toxic and have negative health effects on humans.
There are a number of health risks associated with exposure to PFOS
14
and PFOA, and these risks are present even when PFOS and PFOA are ingested at
seemingly low levels (less than 1 part per billion).
79.
PFOS and PFOA exposure is associated with increased risk of
various diseases and cancers in humans, including, but not limited to: testicular
cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, disorders such as thyroid
disease, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension,
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, increased uric acid as well as other conditions.
80.
Epidemiological studies are ongoing and the full harm of PFOA and
PFOS exposure is not completely understood.

81.
Epidemiological studies of animals exposed to PFOA have found
exposure to PFOA increases the risk of certain tumors of the liver, testicles, mammary
glands (breasts), and pancreas in these animals. In general, well-conducted studies in
animals do a good job of predicting which exposures cause cancer in people.
82.
The EPA has also advised that exposure to PFOS and PFOA
may result in developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breastfed

infants.
83.
Injuries, however, are not sudden; rather, they can arise months, years
or decades after exposure to PFOS and/or PFOA.

84.
The Defendants also knew or should have known that PFCS are highly
soluble in water, and highly mobile and highly persistent in the environment, and
highly likely to contaminate water supplies if released into the environment.
85.
The Defendants marketed and sold their products, AFFF, with
15
knowledge that large quantities of their toxic, harmful and defective product, AFFF,
would be used in training exercises and in emergency situations at Military bases and
civilian fire facilities in such a manner that dangerous chemicals would be released
into the environment.
86.
As discussed in more detail below, PFOS and PFOA contamination has
been discovered in the wells of and surrounding the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
Base- Willow Grove (hereinafter referred to NASJRB-Willow Grove) and Naval Air
Warfare Center (f/k/a Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville). (NASJRB-Willow
Grove and Naval Air Warfare Center (f/k/a Naval Air Development Center,
Johnsville are hereinafter referred to as Bases)
87.
Upon information and belief, the PFOS and PFOA contamination of the
public and private wells and Plaintiffs drinking/potable water supply is the result of
the discharge of AFFF manufactured by the Defendants and used on the Bases.
MILITARY SPECIFICATION FOR AFFF
88.
In 1969, the Department of the Navy issued Military Specification MIL-
F-24385 for AFFF.

89.
A Military Specification is a document that describes the physical
and/or operational characteristics that a product must meet before purchase by the
United States military.
90.
That is, in order for an AFFF manufacturer to sell its AFFF to the Navy, it
was required to meet MIL-F-24385.

91.
MIL-F-24385 covered "the requirements for aqueous film-forming foam
16
(AFFF) liquid concentrate fire extinguishing agents consisting of fluorocarbon

surfactants and other compounds" as required to meet certain performance standards
that were also set forth in MIL-F- 24385.
92.
If the Navy found that a manufacturer's product satisfied MTL-F-24385
performance expectations, the Navy placed the product on the Department of Defense
Qualified Product Listing.
93.
3M, Angus, Ansul, Buckeye, Chemguard, and National Foam each
engineered, designed, manufactured, distributed and sold AFFF that was included on
the Department of Defense Qualified Product Listing for MIL-F- 24385.
94.
Although MIL-F-24385 required the use of a "fluorocarbon surfactant,"
it did not specify a particular chemical, such as PFOS or another Toxic Surfactant.
95.
Upon information and belief, 3M, Angus, Ansul, Buckeye, Chemguard,
and National Foam each chose a Toxic Surfactant to manufacture their MIL-F- 24385compliant AFFF.
96.
The Defendants manufactured, marketed, sold and introduced into the
stream of commerce via sale to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Agencies of

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including but not limited to the Pennsylvania Air
National Guard serving at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base- Willow Grove
(hereinafter referred to NASJRB-Willow Grove) the said harmful and defective
products known as Aqueous Film Forming Foam (hereinafter AFFF) which is a fire
fighting suppressant.
17
97.
The said AFFF was sold to the US Navy, US Air Force, and Pennsylvania
Air National Guard for use on its various and numerous naval vessels and at military
bases including NASJRB-Willow Grove and Naval Air Warfare Center (f/k/a Naval
Air Development Center, Johnsville). (NASJRB-Willow Grove and Naval Air Warfare
Center (f/k/a Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville are hereinafter referred to as
Bases)
98.
Defendants knew or should have known that their harmful and defective
products, AFFF, would be used for various purposes on said Bases, including but not
limited to: training for firefighting, actual firefighting, and use in hangar sprinkler fire
suppressant systems.
99.
Defendants knew or should have known that their harmful and defective
products, AFFF, would drain into the ground and soil polluting and/or contaminating
same and would migrate into the ground water of the Bases and eventually into the
drinking/potable water of the Plaintiffs.
100.
The harmful and defective products, AFFF, manufactured by the
Defendants contained "fluorocarbon surfactants," believed to include PFOS, PFOA,

and/or certain other perfluorinated compounds ("PFCs") that degrade into PFOS or
PFOA. (PFOS, PFOA and the PFCs that degrade into PFOS or PFOA are hereinafter
referred to as "Toxic Surfactants.") The Defendants ' precise formulas for their AFFF
during the relevant period have not been made public.
101.
In its Military Specification (a/k/a and hereinafter referred to as
MILSPEC) for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), the
18
United States of America, through its said Agencies, required that The material shall
have no adverse effect on the health of personnel when used for its intended
purpose.
102.
The Defendants manufactured and/or sold their harmful and defective
products, AFFF, when they knew or should have known that their products had an
adverse effect on the health of persons when used for its intended purposes.
103.
The Defendants failed to warn about the adverse and harmful health
effects of their harmful and defective AFFF products, when they knew or should have
known that their products had an adverse effect on the health of persons when used
for its intended purposes.
104.
While using the harmful and defective products for its intended
purposes, the said harmful and defective products including Toxic Surfactants were
released into the environment contaminating the soil and groundwater of the bases
and migrated into groundwater and eventually into the drinking/potable water of the
Plaintiffs.
105.
The infiltration of the said harmful and defective products which
including Toxic Surfactants, was in violation of the Federal and State statutes and
laws.
106.
The polluted and contaminated water from the Bases migrated into the
drinking/potable water which was ingested by the residents surrounding the Bases as
well as the military personnel serving upon said bases and/or living in said
neighborhoods and civilian personnel working on said Bases.
19
107.
It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff Class, as users of groundwater that supplied the wells near the Bases, would
use and consume groundwater affected by the use of their products at the Bases and
would be damaged by such uses.
108.
In the 1970s-1980s, the Defendants were well aware of the health risks
and adverse human health effects of exposure to the harmful and defective products
which contained Toxic Surfactants.
109.
Despite said knowledge, the Defendants continued to manufacture,
market, sell and/or introduce into the stream of commerce their harmful and defective
products, AFFF, without warning and/or sufficiently warning consumers, purchasers,
users and reasonably foreseeable innocent bystanders, such as Plaintiffs and the
Plaintiff Class/Subclasses, of the health risks and/or adverse human health effects
and failed to recall their defective and harmful products when the said defective and
harmful products were taken off of the market.
110.
By continuing to manufacture, market, sell and/or introduce its
harmful and defective products into the stream of commerce, the Defendants violated
various Federal and State statutes and/or laws.
111.
The Defendants, as the manufacturers of AFFF, knew or should have
known that the inclusion of PFOS and related fluorochemicals that degrades to PFOA
or PFOS in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health and the
environment.
20
AFFF Use at the Willow Grove and Warminster Bases
112.
At any given time during their operation, the Bases housed thousands
of gallons of AFFF concentrate manufactured by Defendants, which were/are stored

in buckets, drums, tankers and sprinkler systems.
113.
U.S. Navy, Air National Guard, Marines, and Air Force (hereinafter
referred to collectively as Military'") personnel, as well as civilian firefighters,

conducted training exercises at the Bases.
114.
In part, the Military and civilian firefighters engaged in firefighting and
explosion training that required the use of AFFF.

115.
For decades, firefighting training activities took place at the two military
116.
Each site also possessed and maintained aircraft hangars protected by
Bases.
ceiling fire suppression units holding hundreds of gallons of AFFF.

117.
The use of AFFF for training purposes included suppressing fires and
explosions on the ground, as well as coating runways in anticipation of difficult

landings, all of which resulted in acres of foam-covered soil and blanketed wreckages.
118.
Upon information and belief, accidental discharges occasionally
occurred within the aircraft hangars resulting in the discharge of hundreds of gallons
of AFFF. The personnel at the Bases cleaned the hangars by washing the foam down
drains which leached into the ground water which provided drinking/potable water
to those serving and working on the bases.
21
119.
Once the ground water of the bases was contaminated and polluted
with PFOA and PFOS, military and civilian personnel on the base became exposed to
PFOA and PFOS in their drinking/cooking water, bathing water, etc.
120.
The polluted and contaminated ground water found its way into the
aquifer and into the drinking/potable water of the areas identified, supra.
121.
Once PFOA and PFOS contaminated and polluted the drinking/potable
water in the Affected Area, military and civilian personnel stationed on the bases were
exposed to PFOA and PFOS in their drinking/cooking water, bathing water, etc.
while living in the areas off the bases and/or while eating, drinking, etc. in restaurants,
cafes, homes of friends, etc. in the said areas.
122.
Once PFOA and PFOS contaminated and polluted the drinking/potable
water in the areas identified, the residents of said areas were exposed to PFOA and
PFOS in their drinking/cooking water, bathing water, etc. while living and working in
the said Affected Area and/or while eating, drinking, etc. in their homes, the homes of
friends, restaurants, cafes, etc. in the said areas.
123.
At all times mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 123 the individuals
ingesting the polluted and contaminated water/food/sustenance were unaware that

they were consuming/ingesting polluted and contaminated substances containing
PFOA and PFOS.
124.
Upon information and belief, instructions and warning labels affixed to
AFFF by the Defendants did not adequately describe the scope of danger associated
with use and disposal of AFFF.
22
125.
Upon information and belief, at no time during the relevant period did
the Defendants warn users of the AFFF that ingredients in the AFFF were persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic, or that, once introduced into the environment, its chemical
components would readily mix with ground and surface water and migrate off the
Bases, contaminating the surrounding communities.
126.
In 2002, 3M ceased production of AFFF manufactured with PFOS due to
health and environmental concerns.

127.
Upon information and belief, 3M and the other defendants had known
of these dangers for years, if not decades.

128.
Even though 3M, who was the predominant manufacturer of PFOS-
based AFFF, ceased production of PFOS-based AFFF in 2002, neither 3M nor any other
Defendant that used these Toxic Surfactants recalled its dangerous products.
129.
Consequently, upon information and belief, Military personnel and
civilians at the Bases continued to use PFOS-laden AFFF for trainings and emergencies
until the base closed in 2011.
130.
According to one study, as of 2011, there were still 1,972,000 gallons of
PFOS-based AFFF stockpiled in the United States.

131.
Further, upon information and belief, the Military continues to store
the PFOS-based AFFF on the Bases.

Regulatory Action for Safe Drinking Water
132.
In 2012, the EPA included
PFOS and PFOA
in its Third
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ("UCMR3"). By placing PFOS and PFOA
23
on this list, the EPA required certain water providers across the country, including
those in the Affected Area, to test their water for the presence of PFOS and PFOA.
133.
In 2014, the Horsham Water and Sewer Authority tested its public wells
in accordance with UCMR3. The testing showed that two of its wells were
contaminated with PFOS above the PHAL of 200 ppt. The Horsham Water and Sewer
Authority immediately shut off those wells.
134.
Subsequently, the Horsham Water and Sewer Authority re-tested all of
its active wells using a more sensitive test. When the Horsham Water and Sewer
Authority re-tested its wells, each of its wells showed contamination from PFOS and/or
PFOA. Horsham eventually shut down five of its wells due to PFOS and/or PFOA
contamination.
135.
Between November 2013 and June 2014, the Warminster Public
Authority also tested its wells in compliance with UCMR3. The testing showed PFOS
levels ranging from 40 ppt to 1090 ppt and PFOA levels ranging from 20 ppt to 890
ppt. The Warminster Public Authority closed six of its wells due to PFOS and/or
PFOA contamination.
136.
Warrington Township also participated in UCMR3 during 2014 and
2015. The testing showed PFOS levels as high as 1600 ppt and PFOA levels up to 270
ppt. Warrington Township initially closed three of its wells, and eventually closed five
of its wells due to PFOS and/or PFOA contamination.
137.
Public water treatment plants in the Horsham, Hatboro, Warminster,
Warrington, Ivyland, Southampton and other areas surrounding the bases were/are not
24
equipped to filter PFOS and PFOA from polluted and contaminated water.
138.
Private wells used for drinking/potable water in Horsham, Hatboro,
Warminster, Warrington, Ivyland, Southampton and other areas surrounding the bases
were/are not equipped to filter PFOS and PFOA from polluted and contaminated
water.
139.
The widespread discovery of contaminated public drinking water wells
led the EPA to call for testing of private drinking water wells within the area.
140.
Since the summer of 2014, the EPA has tested numerous private and
public wells in the vicinity of the Bases. The EPA began reporting the results of the
tests during the Fall of 2014, at which point the Provisional Health Advisory Levels
(PHAL) remained at 200 ppt for PFOS and 400 ppt for PFOA. Even at that time, several
private and public wells tested above the PHALs.
141.
In May 2016, the EPA set its Health Advisory for Lifetime Exposure at
70 ppt for the sum of PFOA and PFOS concentrations in drinking water.
142.
Other states and/or organizations have suggested limiting exposure to
even lower levels of PFOS and/or PFOA.

143.
Negative health outcomes associated with exposure to PFOA-
contaminated drinking water at 50 ppt has been found in a scientific study in and
around Parkersburg, West Virginia.
144.
Certain states have also promulgated advisory exposure levels lower
than the EPA 's advisory level, including the State of New Jersey, which promulgated
an advisory exposure level for PFOA of 14 ppt and the State of Vermont, which set its
25
enforcement standard at 20 ppt for PFOA and 30 ppt for PFOS.

145.
As a result of the testing performed after the EPA's May 2016 Lifetime
Health Advisories were issued for PFOS and PFOA, numerous residents, including
the named Plaintiffs learned that their drinking/potable water supply was
contaminated with dangerous levels of PFOS and/or PFOA.
146.
The United States of America, through the Department of the Navy, has
offered assistance to several impacted residents, but its efforts are too little, too late.
147.
The contamination of the public and private drinking/potable water
wells in the areas surrounding the Bases with high concentration levels of PFOS and
PFOA has been directly linked to the Defendants manufacture of AFFF thorough the
use of the defective/harmful product on the Bases.
148.
As set forth herein, Despite said knowledge, the Defendants continued
to manufacture, market, sell and/or introduce into the stream of commerce their
harmful and defective products, AFFF, without warning and/or sufficiently warning
consumers, purchasers, users and reasonably foreseeable innocent bystanders, such as
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class/Subclasses, of the health risks and/or adverse human
health effects and failed to recall their defective and harmful products when the said
defective and harmful products were taken off of the market.
138.
Since 2014, many private and public drinking/potable drinking water
wells tested within the Affected Area have shown concentrations of PFOS and PFOA.
139.
Multiple studies suggest that even small concentrations of PFCs are
harmful to humans.
26
140.
All persons within the Affected Areas including those serving and/or
working on the Bases have right to clean, drinkable, potable water free of PFOS and
PFOA under the Constitutions of the United States of America and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
149.
In spite of numerous meetings sponsored by governmental entities and
citizens groups, as well as calls for actions by various Federal and State elected officials,
the persons effected as described herein have not been advised when or if their
drinking/potable water will ever be free of PFOS and PFOA contamination in their
public and private wells.
150.
Further, in spite of the agreement of these citizens groups and Federal
and State officials, that blood testing and health monitoring is important and critical
for the effected classes, said blood testing and health monitoring have not been
provided nor have plans been put in place to provide said testing and monitoring at
any time in the future.
151.
As a consequence of the contaminated water within the public water
systems and private wells, many residents have suffered a loss of use and enjoyment
of their properties, and their contaminated properties are less attractive to prospective
buyers/renters and have diminished in value.
152.
As a further consequence of the contaminated water infiltrating their
private wells, many individuals in the class/subclasses have suffered economic loss in
efforts to remove PFOA and PFOS contaminates from the drinking/potable water.
153.
In addition, individuals serviced by public water systems suffered
27
economic loss as a result of the public water authorities being forced to purchase
alternative sources of drinking/potable water.
Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief

154.
In addition to the above, Plaintiffs bring this class action under Rule
23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally
to the Class/Subclasses as a whole, such that final injunctive relief is appropriate with
respect to each of the Class/Subclasses as a whole.
155.
Such injunctive relief includes, but is not limited to, an injunction to
require the implementation and funding of a blood serum testing program for the
Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses to test for the presence of PFOS and/or PFOA in
their blood serum; and the implementation and funding of a medical monitoring
program for the Plaintiffs and the Class/ Subclasses sufficient to monitor the Plaintiffs'
and Class/Subclasses' health to ensure they are adequately protected from the
deleterious effects of PFOS and PFOA on the human body.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Medical Monitoring, Health Effects and
Health Assessment Studies
156.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if they were set forth at length herein.
157.
PFOS and PFOA are proven hazardous substances.
28
158.
PFOS has been determined to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to
mammalian species.
159.
In addition, PFOA has been classified by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 2B carcinogen due to evidence of carcinogenicity

in humans and experimental animals.
160.
Published peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that substantial
exposure to PFOA and PFOS is associated with increased incidences of various types of
cancers as compared with the general population, including, but not limited to: Prostate
Cancer, Testicular Cancer, Bladder Cancer, Colon Cancer, Kidney Cancer, Rectal Cancer,
Pancreatic Cancer, Esophageal Cancer, Laryngeal cancer, Skin Cancer, Uterine/Cervical
Cancer, Breast Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and Leukemia.
161.
These studies have also shown that substantial exposure to PFOA and
PFOS is associated with increased incidences of other chronic diseases and conditions as
compared with the general population including, but not limited to the following:
Cardiovascular Disease, Cerebrovascular Disease, Osteoarthritis, Ulcerative Colitis,
Liver Disease, Liver Disorders and Abnormal Liver Functions, Increased serum
cholesterol, Hyperuricemia , Decreased Birth Weight (when exposed in utero),
Autoimmune diseases and disorders, Thyroid Disease and disorders, Endocrine and
Metabolic Disorders, High Blood Pressure, Hypertension, Pregnancy Induced
Hypertension, Decreased Immune Function and Response to Immunizations, Mental
Disorders, Psychoneurotic Disorders, and Developmental Disorders and Delays in
29
Children.
162.
As a result of the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiffs and Members of
the Class/Subclasses have been exposed to levels of PFOS and PFOA greater than the
normal background levels.
163.
As a proximate result of their exposure to PFOS and PFOA, the Plaintiffs
and the Members of the Class/Subclasses have a significantly increased risk of

contracting serious latent diseases and/or disorders including but not limited to those
cancers and medical conditions listed, supra.
164.
Diagnoses of and early treatment for the cancers, diseases and conditions,
supra, in Plaintiffs and Members of the Class/Subclasses is paramount for detecting and
mitigating long term health consequences.
165.
Medical monitoring can identify abnormalities that are precursors for the
cancers, diseases and conditions listed, supra.

166.
Well-established and specialized medical monitoring procedures exist to
monitor the health condition of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class/Subclasses,
provide for early diagnosis of and treatment for the subject diseases and conditions,
supra, and are reasonably necessary to provide for early diagnosis, leading to significant
benefits in treatment, management, rehabilitation and prevention or mitigation of long
term health consequences.
167.
Some of these medical monitoring tests and procedures include: blood
30
testing, serum lipid profile test, serum thyroid stimulating hormone screening test,
urine screening, increased and more in-depth physical examinations by a physician,
assessment of symptoms by a physician to determine if further testing is necessary,
monitoring of blood pressure, and diagnostic testing such as electrocardiograms,
ultrasounds, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT scans, PET scans, MRI studies and Xrays.
168.
These tests, procedures and health monitoring can increase the likelihood
of early detection, allow for earlier intervention and treatment, and reduce the mortality
rate for Plaintiffs and Members of the Class/Subclasses.
169.
These tests, examinations and procedures are different from the medical
care normally recommended for other individuals of similar age and sex as they are
highly specialized in order to assess and monitor conditions that would not be necessary
in the absence of exposure to PFOS and PFOA.
170.
Further, these tests, examinations and procedures would occur more
frequently that the normal recommended schedule of examinations that would occur in
the absence of exposure to PFOS and PFOA.
171.
The prescribed monitoring regime is reasonably necessary according to
contemporary scientific principles.
31
COUNT II
Negligence
172.
173.
The Defendants had a duty to design, engineer, manufacture, develop,
fabricate, test, sell, and/or distribute AFFF in a manner that avoided harm to those who
foreseeably would come into contact with it.
174.
As discussed, supra, Defendants knew or should have known that the
manufacture, distribution and sales of AFFF containing PFOS and PFOA was hazardous
to human health and the environment.
175.
Defendants further knew or should have known that it was unsafe
and/or unreasonably dangerous to manufacture, distribute and sell AFFF containing

PFOS and PFOA because it was inevitable that said harmful and defective products
migrate off of the Bases and contaminating the ground water and potable/drinking
water supply of the Bases and Affected Area.
176.
The Defendants also knew or should have known that PFCS are highly
soluble in water, and highly mobile and highly persistent in the environment, and
highly likely to contaminate water supplies if released to the environment.
177.
The Defendants marketed and sold their products, AFFF, with
knowledge that large quantities of their toxic, harmful and defective product, AFFF,
32
would be used in training exercises and in emergency situations at Military bases in

such a manner that dangerous chemicals would be released into the environment.
178.
The harm caused by the Defendants harmful and defective products to
the Classes/Subclasses was reasonably foreseeable.

179.
The drinking/potable water of the public and private wells in the
Affected Area are contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOS and PFOA.
180.
As a result of Defendants negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts and
omissions alleged herein, both the public and private drinking/potable water supplies
in the Affected Area are contaminated with PFOS and PFOA.
181.
Defendants' negligent manufacture, sale, or distribution of AFFF caused
and continues to cause unknowing Plaintiffs and Class/Subclass members an increased

risk of associated diseases/illnesses due to the presence of PFOS and PFOA in their
drinking water.
182.
Defendants' failure to warn/sufficiently warn of the effects of their
harmful and defective products resulted in the contamination of private and public
drinking/potable water supplies with PFOS and PFOA.
183.
As a result of Defendants conduct stated herein, members of the
Class/Subclasses have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of use and enjoyment of their
properties, and their contaminated properties are less attractive to prospective
buyers/renters and have diminished in value.
184.
As a further consequence of the contaminated water infiltrating their
33
private wells, many individuals in the class/subclasses have suffered and continue to
suffer economic loss in efforts to remove PFOA and PFOS contaminates from the
drinking/potable water.
185.
In addition, individuals in the class/subclasses serviced by public water
systems have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss as a result of the public water
authorities being forced to purchase alternative sources of drinking/potable water.
186.
Defendants' acts were willful, wanton or reckless and conducted with a
reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class/Subclasses.

187.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions,
Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses have suffered and continue to suffer damages,
including medical monitoring damages; monetary damages associated with the
investigation, treatment, remediation. and monitoring of their drinking/potable water;
increased costs to obtain drinking/potable water; and property damages, including,
without limitation, loss of value, annoyance, disturbance, intrusion, harassment and
inconvenience; all for which Plaintiffs and the Subclasses are entitled to recover damages.
COUNT III
Defective Product - Failure to Warn
188.
189.
At all times relevant, Defendants were in the business of, among other
things, designing, engineering, manufacturing, developing, fabricating, testing, selling,
34
and/or distributing AFFF.

190.
As designers, engineers, manufacturers, developers, fabricators, testers
sellers, and/or distributers of a commercial product, the Defendants had a duty to

provide reasonable instructions and adequate warnings about the risks of injuries and
harmful effects to human health and the environment posed by their products.
191.
Defendants knew or should have known that the foreseeable storage, use
and disposal of the AFFF that they designed, engineered, developed, fabricated, tested
manufactured, sold, and distributed had the capacity to enter the water supply, to
persist there for decades, and to cause harm to human health, property and the
environment.
192.
These risks were not obvious to users of the AFFF.
193.
Upon information and belief, the Defendants failed to provide warnings
to the users that use of Defendants' harmful and defective product could result in the
contamination of groundwater and drinking/potable water supplies.
194.
Upon information and belief, the Defendants failed to provide warnings
to the users of the dangers to human health. property and the environment if their
harmful and defective product was permitted to contaminate the groundwater or
drinking/potable water supply.
195.
Sufficient and adequate instructions and warnings would have reduced
or avoided the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the Defendants harmful and defective
35
products.
196.
Had Defendants provided adequate warnings, the users of their AFFF
would have taken adequate measures to store, use, and dispose of AFFF so as to reduce
or eliminate groundwater and drinking/potable water contamination from AFFF.
197.
As a result of Defendants' failure to warn against the likelihood of
contamination from their AFFF, the groundwater and drinking/potable water became
contaminated with toxic PFOS and PFOS.
198.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to warn of the
environmental and health impacts caused by their harmful and defective product, AFFF,
the drinking/potable water supplies in and around the Affected Area became
contaminated with PFOS and PFOA and have caused health risks to Plaintiffs and the
Subclasses.
199.
Defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions
rendered Defendants AFFF a defective product.

200.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' designing, engineering,
manufacturing, developing, fabricating, testing, selling, and/or manufacturing, or

distributing of a defective product, Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses have suffered
and continue to suffer damages, including medical monitoring damages; monetary
damages associated with the investigation , treatment, remediation, and monitoring of
their drinking/potable water; increased costs of drinking/potable water; economic loss,
36
property damages, including, without limitation, loss of value, annoyance, disturbance,

intrusion, harassment and inconvenience; all for which Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses are entitled to recover damages.
201.
As a result of Defendants' manufacture, sale, or distribution of a defective
product, Defendants are strictly liable in damages to the Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses.
202.
reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class/Subclasses.

COUNT IV
Defective Product - Design Defect
203.
204.
engineering,
At all times relevant, Defendants were in the business of, designing,

manufacturing,
developing,
fabricating,
testing,
selling,
and/or
distributing AFFF.
205.
Defendants negligently designed, engineered, developed, fabricated and
tested AFFF and PFCs, and thereby failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the AFFF
and the components from presenting an unreasonable risk of harm to human health and
the environment and persons who would come in contact with it, including Plaintiffs and
the Plaintiff Class/Subclasses.
206.
It was foreseeable that toxic chemicals from the AFFF that Defendants
37
designed, engineered, developed, fabricated, tested, manufactured, sold and distributed

would enter the water supply of the Plaintiffs and the Classes/Subclasses and cause
harm to their persons, and property and the environment.
207.
Alternative designs of AFFF were available, technologically feasible and
practical, and would have reduced or prevented the harm to Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses.
208.
A reasonable alternative design would, at a reasonable cost, have
reduced or eliminated the foreseeable risks of harm posed by AFFF.

209.
The AFFF designed, engineered, developed, fabricated and tested
manufactured, sold, or distributed by the Defendants was defective in design because

the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the AFFF could have been reduced or eliminated
by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.
210.
Defendants' products were defective at the time of manufacture, and at
the time they left Defendants' control.

211.
As a result of Defendants' designing, engineering, manufacturing,
developing, fabricating, testing, selling, and/or distributing designed product, the

drinking/potable water supplies in and around the Bases became contaminated with
dangerous and toxic chemicals and damaged the Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses.
212.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' designing, engineering,
manufacturing, developing, fabricating, testing, selling, and/or manufacturing, or

distributing of a defective product, Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses have suffered
38
and continue to suffer damages, including medical monitoring damages; monetary

damages associated with the investigation , treatment, remediation, and monitoring of
their drinking/potable water; increased costs of drinking/potable water; economic loss,
property damages, including, without limitation, loss of value, annoyance, disturbance,
intrusion, harassment and inconvenience; all for which Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses are entitled to recover damages.
213.
As a result of Defendants' designing, engineering, manufacturing,
developing, fabricating, testing, selling, and/or distributing a defective product.

Defendants are strictly liable in damages to the Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses.
214.
reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Subclasses.

DAMAGES SOUGHT BY THE CLASS
215.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if they were set forth at length herein.
216.
Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses seek damages sufficient to fund a
medical monitoring program that is reasonably tailored to the exposure risks posed by
PFOS and PFOA as described supra.
217.
Plaintiffs also seek damages sufficient to fund a blood testing program to
pay for the costs of an initial blood test, and such follow-up blood tests that are deemed
necessary, to determine the current levels of PFOS and PFOA in the blood serum of the
Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses.
39
218.
Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses seek monetary damages for each
violation including the continuing violations of the Counts set forth supra. In
particular, Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses seek monetary damages:
(i)
sufficient to remediate class members' property from the
contamination caused by Defendants' conduct or, i n the alternative, to
compensate class members for the diminution in value of their property
caused by Defendants' conduct;
(ii)
to compensate class members for the loss of use and enjoyment of
their properties caused by Defendants' conduct;
(iii) for the Private Well Class/Subclass, for the increased costs to obtain
drinking water, including the costs of alternative drinking water sources
or the installation and maintenance of an adequate filtration system(s);
(iv)
for the Public Well/Water Class/ Subclass, for the increased costs
of water that they will bear as rate-payers as a result of Defendants'
conduct; and
(v)
for such other monetary damages as are required to fully
compensate Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses for the loss of value of
their properties caused by Defendants' conduct.
219.
Plaintiffs and the Subclasses seek punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to deter Defendants' similar wrongful conduct in the future.

220.
In addition to the above, Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses seek
injunctive relief including, but not limited to, implementation of a mandatory testing
protocol requiring Defendants to expeditiously test the wells of all Private Well
Class/Subclass members for the presence of PFOS and Pf-OA and to continue that
testing until it is determined that the risk of PFOS and PFOA contamination in private
wells has ended; to install permanent filtration devices on any private well testing
positive for the presence of PFOS and/or PFOA, and to maintain those filtration devices
pursuant to industry best practices; to establish and fund a blood testing program for
40
Plaintiffs and members of the Class/Subclasses; to establish and fund a medical

monitoring program for Plaintiffs and members of the Class/Subclasses; and to take all
steps necessary to remediate the Affected Area such that all public and private water
supplies of the Public Water and Private Well Plaintiffs and Class/Subclasses are free
from the presence of PFOS and PFOA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, request the Court to enter judgment against the Defendants, as follows:
A.
An order certifying the proposed Class and Subclasses of: Public Water
Subclass, Private Well Subclass, and Non-Property Owner Subclass. and designating
Plaintiffs as the named representatives of the respective Subclasses, and designating
the undersigned as Class Counsel;
B.
An order requiring Defendants to:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
implement a testing protocol to test the wells belonging to each

member of the Private Well Class/Subclass;
install permanent filtration devices on any private well testing
positive for the presence of PFOS and PFOA, or to facilitate the
transition for Private Well Class/Subclass to connect to a public
water supply;
establish a blood testing program for Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses;
establish a medical monitoring protocol for Plaintiffs and the
Class/Subclasses to monitor individuals' health and diagnose at an
early stage any ailments associated with exposure to PFOS and
PFOA; and,
take all necessary steps to remediate the property and/or
residences of Plaintiffs and the Class/Subclasses to eliminate the
presence of PFOS and PFOA;
41
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by
jury of any and all issues in this action so triable of right.
30
Exhibit A
11.c-yv1U
.....,
...
:,,
...
,;'
...
.... o.
...
......
.,.
.Jo
'
....
.....
'-.... /'
.~,.
...
"..
.
:
.,,., ;~,..
"'"'\-;...
~ ~
~...
...,.
~.,..""
..
1,
,_..q..
~4..
#'....
~"
If'
119
~.
i
!
~-~
,.
.,.,,,..;;,'
"'f
""""Tp
-~
0
~-'
'l
. "
...
"
\
,
,/'
....,_, ..
Wtn!'l1ton
lI
~" ~
-...,,:"-..;"'-..
if:
4t' '
...
\,\
,,,.,,:
~<t
~~
.,.~
f .
Hoohom
...
~ ~
.,_
,t
~....,
...,.. Jt...
...-"
#..
.,.
,.
"'!
.. _.E
...
~"''"
...~.l
...... .. .
<.,
WIMt#t'
'
.. .....
/" ......
.
..
l ' 1~~...
...,
.!
":r,,,
.!'-./
l'
l.
"'~....
,.,
(I. I
;.....,
...., .
_;
/:~ ..,,..... t
~,j:.1.,.
0..,.1'$
.........
,!
~""
/.:
., ...,.,, ,..A/>..."'"\.
...
f. YOI~ ......
.J<
OV
/
... .. ,,.
.
'
' ...
.,.,;
.,
Htboro
...........-
............;.:'
.......
~'-
,;
7'
,..i,'o /
" o
--
....-
...,
o <:b
...~ ~
er. -~~
~l~ ~. ,.. . .....
./., lh
.. . i'
.., ..
~
/ ?;''" ~ .,. 5f"' ..
4'>
.....
~- -~ v p
:.''<, ,,,..
q_,eo
'
>
...
~-<J(J;,O
.....
~(.
1.-.
.,..,,..
<t
.-,~
,
..........
.... l ..
it
1,.11!;..<0""
.....
''4q
<.:
.........
_..
...........,
..,,.. ~ .;
...
...
..
..
,
....
. -.. . .
.....
':l
.
.
_,,.
:/
.as.._
,,.-'....
'/
::~."'!
'
............
~-~
.,
:-t>'f.o
'<"~
.., ,...
~"'~"'
.. i
.. .
'1
<fY'*dd T.tp
...
............. ...,\~,
~l
'~/
_...
...~
,.
>,
,,.
'., .
HOUi
s.prin1
\. :=.: ,,,~._p..
l
,,.,.
..
,.,.,
'
\,
- <ft
_,-'_/
'l
..
../
.....>.; .,
....
...
,\
...
<1."..
...~--
Legend
g/L
concentrat1ons above 0 070
Sum of PFOA & PFOS
PFOA 0.070 g/L . PFOS 0 070 g/l
Health Advisory Level (HAL )

HAL is the sum of both PFOA and PFOS
Location sampled
PFOA & PFOS not detected
below 0.070 g/L
Sum of PFOA & PFOS

concentrations detected at or
Former NAS JRB Wiiiow Grove
Horsham Air Guard
Not scheduled for sampling yet
(no results yet)
D
C-.]
Sampling Area
Air Force Admm1nstrat1ve Order

Boundary
lj
7,000
c:::J Horsham Township
c::J Warnngton Township
l>CU <ilt>M 1011

v.-...1.,,, ~.....-Mro
~po-yt!>lll.~Y"'
Coordmore 5Y'tem
'>.om~ O~t.>
WGS84 UTM Zoroe 18N Fee t
Fee
3.500
WtllowG1ove Nav<1I Air St;111on Sia
Figure 1
PFC Sample location Map

as of 05/20/2016
w so 1 -1~-cn.on 10 21
Pi-~p~ "V2l/20 1 6
C,()t\trKIE PSl l ~2
roo

Horsham Contamination Class Action Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Horsham Contamination Class Action Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

JS44

Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 3

The JS 44 civil co..

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telep

Joseph L. Feliciani, Esquire/Creedon & Feliciani, P.C.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an x" 1noneBox011!vJ

Incoq>orated or Principal Place

~ 365 Personal Injury -

0 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881

0 375 False Claims Act

<:P 'OCfALiSEC JR.ITV

0 710 Fair Labor Standards

0 740 Railway Labor Act

Black Lung (923)

0 751 Family and Medical

PRfS:~l'!IElt'PETITIO:NS ,,,: 0 791 Employee Retiremenl

Other Civil Rights

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

Income Security Act

0 367 Health Care/

CJ 330 Federal Employ rs"

'"X'" m One Bar.for l'laintiff

Other Statutory Actions

0 462 Naturalization Application

(Place an 'X" in One Box Only)

Brief description of cause:

Address of P aintiff: Ambler, PA 19002

more of its stock?

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance_with.Eed.R.Civ.P. 7.l(a)) _

RELATED CASE, IFANY:

Judge Hon. Petrese B. Tucker

terminated action in this court?

Vin ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A Federal Question Cases:

I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

1. o Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2. o Airplane Personal Injury

3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury

4. o Marine Personal Injury

_5. o,.,Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

~ther Personal Injury (Please specify)

Securities Act(s) Cases

All other Diversity Cases

Social Security Review Cases

ther Federal Question Cases

_,__......__+-----'---..._____________, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:

R ief other than monetary damages is sought.

Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 3

October 13, 2016

Joseph L. Feliciani, Esquire

(Civ. 660) 10/02

Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 43

CREEDON & FELICIANI, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 43

Case 2:16-cv-05380-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 43

Plaintiff, Leonard Grande, is and adult individual residing at 998 Limekiln

individuals currently residing at 421 Bensol Road, Hatboro, PA 19040.

From 1997 to 2013, the Clerkins resided at 10 Oxford Lane, Horsham, PA

_,......+-----'---..._____________, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify: