State's Reply to Defendants' Response to Third Notice Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Filed File Date: 6/10/2020 9:49 AM Hillsborough Superior Court Northern District E-Filed Document THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Hillsborough County Superior Court Northern District 216-2019-CV-00445 State of New Hampshire v. 3M Company et al. STATE’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THIRD NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Plaintiff, the State of New Hampshire (“the State”), by and through its undersigned counsel, provided supplemental authority to the Court with decisions from the Vermont Superior Court, on May 29, 2020. In doing so, the State provided the supplemental authority without engaging in further argument or repeating arguments previously made. 3M, however, has now filed an apparently substantive responsive pleading which DuPont/Chemours has joined. While disagreeing that these pleadings are provided by the rules, the content of these pleadings fail to provide the Court with the whole story of the argument made in Vermont or the relevant Vermont law and are therefore misleading without further context. Additional pleadings and resources are necessary to inform this Court of the context in which the Vermont Superior Court made its ruling. Accordingly, the State provides those additional resources here. First, unlike the State’s argument to this Court, the State of Vermont did not argue that it constructively possesses public lands. It did not make this argument in is pleadings or at oral argument on the motions to dismiss and motion to sever and stay. Enclosed is Vermont’s Opposition Memorandum to the motions to dismiss (without attachments) as well as the oral argument transcript from the Vermont Superior Court hearing on these matters. For reference, the Court is directed to Tr. 45–46; 75–86 for a discussion of possession, generally, with no claim of constructive possession. 1 Second, the state of Vermont does not have a counterpart statute to NH RSA 271:20 and 481:1, giving the State ownership and control over groundwater and surface waters. See also, Seward v. Loranger, 130 NH 570, 571 (1988); compare Vermont Memo. Opp. MTD at 38, n. 28. Therefore, the Court will also note an absence in the Opposition and at oral argument of any argument that Vermont possesses, constructively or otherwise, water resources. These additional resources inform this Court in evaluating how much weight to give the Vermont Superior Court’s rulings and provide the proper context for the arguments defendants have made. Dated: June 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE By its attorney, GORDON J. MACDONALD ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ Ashley Campbell Richard W. Head, NH Bar #7900 Ashley B. Campbell, NH Bar #264860 SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 401 San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (603) 716-8235 [email protected] [email protected] 2 K. Allen Brooks, NH Bar #16424 Senior Assistant Attorney General Christopher G. Aslin, NH Bar #18285 Senior Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPT. OF JUSTICE 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 271-3650 [email protected] [email protected] William J. Jackson (admitted pro hac vice) John D.S. Gilmour (admitted pro hac vice) Lana M. Rowenko (admitted pro hac vice) KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 515 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 900 Houston, TX 77027 Tel: (713) 355-5000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Robert A. Bilott (admitted pro hac vice) David J. Butler (admitted pro hac vice) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 Tel: (513) 381-2838 (614) 221-2838 [email protected] [email protected] Gary J. Douglas (pro hac vice pending) Michael A. London (pro hac vice pending) Rebecca G. Newman (pro hac vice pending) Tate Kunkle (pro hac vice pending) DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 566-7500 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 10th day of June 2020, a copy of the foregoing document was served via electronic service through the Court’s electronic filing system on all counsel of record. /s/ Ashley Campbell Ashley Campbell, NH Bar # 264860 4 STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION CHITTENDEN UNIT DOCKET NO. 547-6-19 Cncv State of Vermont v. 3M Company, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc., and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. PLAINTIFF STATE OF VERMONT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 3M COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................................... 3 I. PFAS are toxic chemicals that pose serious health and environmental risks. 3 II. 3M manufactured and supplied PFAS and products containing PFAS to Vermont despite knowing of their serious health and environmental risks. ........... 4 III.PFAS have contaminated many State natural resources and properties. .......... 6 Standard of Review ........................................................................................................ 6 Argument ....................................................................................................................... 7 I. The State’s natural resource damages and restoration claim encompasses all PFAS-contaminated natural resources. ................................................................. 7 A. The State may bring an NRD claim to protect surface waters against toxic chemical pollution. .................................................................................................. 8 B. The State may bring an NRD claim to protect groundwater and other natural resources. ................................................................................................. 13 II. The State properly pled a design defect claim. ................................................. 17 III. The State has pleaded nuisance claims. ............................................................ 22 A. Vermont law does not impose a “control” requirement. ............................... 22 B. Nuisance liability is not limited to harms from the use of land. .................. 26 C. The State has sought proper relief for its public and private nuisance claims. .................................................................................................................... 27 IV. The State properly pled its trespass claims. ..................................................... 31 A. Chemical invasions constitute actionable trespasses. .................................. 31 B. Product manufacturers can be liable for causing a trespass. ....................... 33 C. The State is not required to plead exclusive possession. .............................. 35 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 39 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abbatiello v. Monsanto Co., 522 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ..................................................................... 32 Aranoff v. Bryan, 153 Vt. 59, 569 A.2d 466 (1989) ............................................................................. 22 Attorney Gen. v. Hermes, 339 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) .................................................................. 36 Bloomingdales v. New York City Transit Auth., 915 N.E.2d 608 (N.Y. 2009) .................................................................................... 37 Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, 294 A.2d 47 (N.J. 1972) ............................................................................................ 9 Camden County Board v. Beretta, 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 24 Carlson v. Latvian Lutheran Exile Church, 171 A.3d 1227 (N.H. 2017) ..................................................................................... 37 City of Evansville v. Ky. Liquid Recycling., 604 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................ 28 City of Montpelier v. Barnett, 2012 VT 32, 191 Vt. 441, 49 A.3d 120.......................................................... 9, 10, 13 City of San Diego v. Monsanto Co., No. 15cv578-WQH-AGS, 2017 WL 5632052 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017) ................ 24 City of San Jose v. Monsanto Co., 231 F. Supp. 3d 357 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................... 24 City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (W.D. Wash. 2017) ........................................................ 24, 28 City of Spokane v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:15-CV-00201-SMJ, 2016 WL 6275164 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2016) ............ 24 Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, 184 Vt. 1, 955 A.2d 1082.......................................................... 6, 20, 22 ii Com. v. Endo Health Sols. Inc., No. 17-CI-1147, 2018 WL 3635765 (Ky. Cir. Ct. July 10, 2018) ........................... 25 County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield, 137 Cal. App. 4th 292 (2006) ............................................................................ 24, 28 Fortier v. Flambeau Plastics Co., 476 N.W.2d 593 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991) ...................................................................