U.S. District Court Judge denies Perdue’s motion to dismiss federal lawsuit
Salisbury, Md. – On January 8th, a U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher denied Perdue’s motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit against them filed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for PFAS contimatination out of their facility on Zion Church Road.
Perdue was also denied a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against them in August. The class action suit seeks damages on behalf of the area residents. According to plaintiff representative Chase Brockstedt, the federal lawsuit brought on by two Salisbury residents seeks an immediate stop to what under the statute is classified as open dumping.
“And essentially what we’re what we’re seeking this this specific statute to do is to, cease Purdue from, continuing its discharge of fast laid and waste water, into the community,” he said.
Brockstedt described the ruling as “another win,” however he said it was the residents that continue to suffer from the ongoing litigation.
“Unfortunately, it continues to be a loss for the residents in the area because , they continue to, you know, litigate. They continue to operate their facility unabated
However,
However, Perdue also considers the court’s ruling a win. Perdue said the court narrowed the case substantially and recognized the steps Perdue has taken to address the issue, adding that the plaintiffs’ effort to turn this case into a broader environmental referendum failed.
Rulings on Motions to dismiss are not overly noteworthy. However, today’s ruling is a clear win. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ most extreme claims and narrowed this case substantially. Two of the four counts were dismissed outright, including the claim alleging “imminent and substantial endangerment” and the groundwater contamination claim that attempted to stretch the law beyond its limits.
Just as important, the court recognized that Perdue has been supplying bottled water, installing point-of-entry treatment systems, and that testing shows non-detectable PFAS levels in treated well water—steps Perdue began before this lawsuit was filed. As this case proceeds, it will become clear that plaintiffs’ counsel is attempting to take credit for remediation work Perdue was already undertaking, including installing water filters, removing the AFFF fire-suppression system, and upgrading wastewater treatment at its facility.
“The plaintiffs’ effort to turn this case into a broader environmental referendum failed. The court ruled they lack standing to pursue generalized environmental claims. What remains is a limited legal dispute focused on technical regulatory issues—not a finding of wrongdoing, not a finding of harm, and not an emergency. The case will now proceed on a much narrower track, alongside ongoing oversight by Maryland regulators. Perdue will continue doing what it has been doing all along: cooperating with regulators, providing clean drinking water, and addressing issues responsibly and transparently,” said a Perdue spokesperson in a statement to WMDT.
Perdue said it will continue to cooperate with regulators, provide clean drinking water and address issues “responsibly and transparently.”
However, though Brockstedt reaffirmed the court’s ruling benifitted the community, he says the community is losing because of how important Perdue is to the community.
