Uniformed Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n of Conn. v. 3M Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge
• Docket Number: CIVIL 3:24-CV-1101 (AWT)
• Decision Date: 09 January 2026
• Citation: Uniformed Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n of Conn. v. 3M Co., CIVIL 3:24-CV-1101 (AWT) (D. Conn. Jan 09, 2026)
• Parties: UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT; STAMFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 786; FAIRFIELD FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1426; STRATFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 998; HAMDEN PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 2687; CITY OF GROTON FIRE FIGHTERS UNION, IAFF LOCAL 1964; HARTFORD FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 760; NEW CANAAN FIRE DEPARTMENT, IAFF LOCAL 3224; TORRINGTON FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1567; WESTPORT UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1081; WILTON FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 2233; SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL I-68; NORWALK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 830; CITY OF STAMFORD; OLD MYSTIC FIRE DISTRICT; THE RELIANCE FIRE COMPANY, INC.; PETER BROWN; PAUL ANDERSON; STEVE MICHALOVIC; DAN TOMPKINS; NELSON HWANG; WILLIAM TUTTLE; BRIAN DOANE; ARTURO ROSA; TIMOTHY E. O'DONNELL; JOE ROUSSO; MATTHEW WILLE; and TOM REICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY, CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC., GENTEX CORPORATION, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., FIRE- DEX GW, LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., INNOTEX CORP., INTERTECH GROUP, INC., LION GROUP, INC., LAKELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC. d/b/a TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA, and VIKING LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT AMERICA, INC., Defendants.

1

UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT; STAMFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 786; FAIRFIELD FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1426; STRATFORD PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 998; HAMDEN PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 2687; CITY OF GROTON FIRE FIGHTERS UNION, IAFF LOCAL 1964; HARTFORD FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 760; NEW CANAAN FIRE DEPARTMENT, IAFF LOCAL 3224; TORRINGTON FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1567; WESTPORT UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 1081; WILTON FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL 2233; SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT FIRE FIGHTERS, IAFF LOCAL I-68; NORWALK PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 830; CITY OF STAMFORD; OLD MYSTIC FIRE DISTRICT; THE RELIANCE FIRE COMPANY, INC.; PETER BROWN; PAUL ANDERSON; STEVE MICHALOVIC; DAN TOMPKINS; NELSON HWANG; WILLIAM TUTTLE; BRIAN DOANE; ARTURO ROSA; TIMOTHY E. O'DONNELL; JOE ROUSSO; MATTHEW WILLE; and TOM REICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY, CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC., GENTEX CORPORATION, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., FIRE- DEX GW, LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., INNOTEX CORP., INTERTECH GROUP, INC., LION GROUP, INC., LAKELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC. d/b/a TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA, and VIKING LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT AMERICA, INC., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 3:24-CV-1101 (AWT)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 9, 2026

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge The plaintiffs have moved for jurisdictional discovery as to those defendants who have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants who have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction are InterTech Group, Inc. (“InterTech”); PBI Performance Products, Inc. (“PBI”); Elevate Textiles, Inc. (“Elevate”); Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. (“SCFTI”); Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”); Chemours Company (“Chemours”), Chemours Company FC, LLC (“Chemours FC”), Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (“New DuPont”), and EIDP Inc. (“Old DuPont”) (collectively, the “DuPont Defendants”); and Southern Mills, Inc. d/b/a TenCate Protective Fabrics (“TenCate”). For the purposes of this ruling, the court refers to these defendants as the “Moving Defendants.”

For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery (ECF No. 293) is being granted. The Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss at ECF Nos. 248, 250, 251, 253, and 255 are being denied in part without prejudice, i.e. only insofar as they seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Second Amended Complaint sets forth claims against the defendants for “harm resulting from the purchase, use of, and dependence upon certain fire fighter personal protective equipment (‘PPE') containing hazardous levels of toxic, carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (‘PFAS' or ‘PFAS Chemicals.').” Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 215) (“SAC”) ¶ 2. The plaintiffs allege that the “[d]efendants designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, and/or sold the equipment, materials, and/or chemicals in Connecticut and caused harm to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' members, and members of the Class in Connecticut.” Id. ¶ 69. The plaintiffs claim that the “[d]efendants are chemical manufacturers, materials manufacturers, and PPE manufacturers who produced, sold, and caused to be distributed to Plaintiffs PPE that was intentionally contaminated with dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.” Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Juris. (ECF No. 292-1) at 11-12.^[1]The following Moving Defendants are Delaware corporations: Old DuPont, New Dupont, Chemours, Corteva, Elevate, Gentex, PBI, and SCFTI. See SAC ¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 63, 64. InterTech is a South Carolina corporation. See SAC ¶ 58. TenCate is a Georgia corporation. See SAC ¶ 66. Chemours FC is a limited liability company formed under Delaware law. See Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Juris. Ex. D (ECF No. 292-6) at 2.^[2]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“On a Rule (12)(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 1996). Where a defendant challenges “only the sufficiency of the plaintiff's factual allegation, in effect demurring by filing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the plaintiff need persuade the court only that its factual allegations constitute a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990).

“[W]hen a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written materials . . . the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits.” Seetransport, Wiking, Trader, Schiffanhtsgesellschaft, MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572, 580 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). However, “[i]f the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party.” Id.

Where a plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction but has “made a sufficient start toward establishing personal jurisdiction,” a court may grant jurisdictional discovery. JGB Enterprises, Inc. v. Beta Fluid Sys., Inc., 135 F.Supp.3d 18, 26 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, 469 F.Supp.2d 67, 70-71 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). “[C]onclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations” are not a sufficient basis for granting permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181, 185 (2d Cir. 1998). But a court should grant permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery where the “plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations are neither sparse nor insufficiently specific [but] are simply insufficiently developed at [the] time to permit judgment as to whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate.” Texas Int'l Magnetics, Inc. v. BASF Aktiengesellschaft, 31 Fed.Appx. 738, 739 (2d Cir. 2002).

“[W]here jurisdictional discovery has been conducted . . . a plaintiff's prima facie showing must be ‘factually supported'; in other words, it must ‘include an averment of facts that, if credited by [the ultimate trier of fact], would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.'” Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 567) (alteration in original).

III. DISCUSSION

As discussed below, the plaintiffs' allegations go beyond conclusory jurisdictional allegations but require further development.

“[I]n resolving questions of personal jurisdiction in a diversity action, a district court must conduct a two-part inquiry.” Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 567. “First, it must determine whether the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is amenable to service of process under the forum state's laws; and second, it must assess whether the court's assertion of jurisdiction under these laws comports with the requirements of due process.” Id.

A. Relevant Connecticut Statutes

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929(f):

Every foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this state, by a resident of this state or by a person having a usual place of business in this state, whether or not such foreign corporation is transacting or has transacted business in this state and whether or not it is engaged exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, on any cause of action arising . . . (3) out of the production, manufacture or distribution of goods by such corporation with the reasonable expectation that such goods are to be used or consumed in this state and are so used or consumed, regardless of how or where the goods were produced, manufactured, marketed or sold or whether or not through the medium of independent contractors or dealers ....

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a):

As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, or over the executor or administrator of such nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, who in person or through an agent: (1) [t]ransacts any business within the state ....

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-920(a), “[a] foreign corporation [with certain exceptions not applicable here] . may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Secretary of the State.” “Each foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this state shall continuously maintain in this state: (1) [a] registered office that may be the same as any of its places of business; and (2) a registered agent at such registered office ....” Conn....