AIG Property Casualty Company v. 3M Company

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota December 18, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

AIG Property Casualty Company, Civ. No. 24-4032 (PAM/DJF)
f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance
Company of Pennsylvania and
Birmingham Fire Insurance
Company, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing
Company, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant 3M Company’s Motion to Stay.
(Docket No. 54.)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs (the “AIG Insurers”) filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration that they need
not defend and indemnify Defendant 3M Company in thousands of underlying lawsuits,
which allege that 3M’s manufacture of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(“PFAS”) caused injuries and damages. On October 28, 2024, 3M filed a Notice of
Potential Tag-Along Action with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”),
asserting that this matter should be transferred to the products-liability multidistrict
litigation (“MDL”), In re AFFF Prods. Liab. Litig. (the “AFFF MDL”), in the District of
South Carolina. MDL No. 2873, Docket No. 3025 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2024). Thereafter, the
JMPL entered a Conditional Transfer Order. Id., Docket No. 3037. On January 30, 2025,
the JPML will consider AIG’s Motion to Vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. (See
Docket No. 142-1 at 8–9.)

3M moves the Court to stay all proceedings in this case until the JMPL issues its
decision on whether to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL and also seeks additional time
to respond to the Complaint. The AIG Insurers oppose the Motion, arguing that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and thus the case should be remanded to state court.
DISCUSSION
The Court has discretion to stay proceedings to control its docket. Sierra Club v.

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,

446 F.3d 808

, 816–17 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Clinton v. Jones,

520 U.S. 681, 706

 (1997)).  Relevant here, a court may stay proceedings when a decision 
on transfer is pending from the JPML.  Anderson v. Fortra LLC, Civ. No. 23-533,

2024 WL 195648

, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2024) (Nelson, J.) (citing Blackmore v. Smitty’s 
Supply, Inc.,

451 F. Supp. 3d 1003

, 1004 (N.D. Iowa 2020)).  Courts in this District 

consider three factors when deciding whether to stay a case pending a decision from the 
JPML:  “(1) the potential prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) the potential hardship and 
inequity to the moving party if the case is not stayed; and (3) the potential stay’s impact on 
judicial resources.”

Id.

 (citing Kellogg v. Watts Guerra, LLP, Civ. No. 18-1082,

2018 WL 3432048

, at *1 (D. Minn. July 16, 2018) (Frank, J.)).                     

    3M contends that all three factors weigh in its favor.  The Court agrees.  First, the 
Court is unconvinced that the AIG Insurers will suffer prejudice resulting from a stay of a 
few weeks or even months.  Second, 3M persuasively argues that litigating multiple 
lawsuits throughout the country imposes a significant burden.  Third, a stay would conserve 
substantial judicial resources.  The AIG Insurers oppose the transfer and stay, arguing that 
the Court should follow a “jurisdiction first” method, but the only case that they cite from 

this District following such an approach—State of Minnesota v. Pharmacia Corp., Civ. 
No. 05-1394,

2005 WL 2739297

, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2005) (Magnuson, J.)—is 
factually and procedurally distinguishable.                               
    Indeed, as 3M contends, “[i]t is well-established . . . that jurisdictional objections, 
including objections to removal, are not relevant to transfer [to an MDL].  This is so even 
where, as here, plaintiffs assert that the removals were patently improper.”  In re Ford 

Motor Co. DPS PowerShift Transmission Prods. Liab. Litig.,

289 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1352

 
(J.P.M.L. Feb. 2, 2018).  The JPML has transferred other cases to the AFFF MDL despite 
pending objections regarding federal jurisdiction.  See In re AFF Prods. Liab. Litig.,

669 F. Supp. 3d 1375

, 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2023).  Moreover, other courts in this District have 
granted stays despite pending JPML decisions and objections to transfer for jurisdiction.  

See  e.g.,  Perendy  v.  Volkswagen  Group  of  Am.,  Inc.,  Civ.  No.  16-1247,

2016 WL 3676184

, at *3 (D. Minn. July 7, 2016) (Magnuson, J.) (staying the case over plaintiff’s 
objection to jurisdiction, finding that granting a stay was not a jurisdictional act and that 
the MDL court could address the plaintiff’s concerns about a remand); Werner v. Eich 
Motor Co., Inc., Civ. No. 16-396,

2016 WL 3024053

, at *2–3 (D. Minn. May 25, 2016) 

(Montgomery, J.) (denying without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion for remand based on lack 
of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that doing so did not prevent plaintiffs from 
raising the jurisdictional arguments before the MDL court).               
    In sum, granting a stay in this matter “provides the opportunity for the uniformity, 
consistency,  and  predictability  in  litigation  that  underlies  the  multidistrict  litigation 

system.”  Calder v. A.O. Smith Corp., Civ. No. 04-1481,

2004 WL 1469370

, at *1 (D. 
Minn. June 1, 2004) (Tunheim, J.).                                        
CONCLUSION                                                                
    Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                              
    1.   Defendant 3M Company’s Motion for Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on 
         Multidistrict  Litigation’s  Final  Transfer  Decision  (Docket  No.  54)  is 

         GRANTED and this matter is STAYED pending the final decision of the 
         JPML  regarding  whether  to  transfer  this  action  to  the  MDL—In  Re: 
         Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, Case 
         No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG (D.S.C.); and                              
    2.   Defendant 3M Company’s time to respond the Complaint is extended to 30 

         days after the JPML issues its final decision.                  
Date:  December 18, 2024            s/Paul A. Magnuson                    
                                  Paul A. Magnuson                       
                                  United States District Court Judge