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 contamination 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.
“Essentially, what we’re seeking this specific statute to do is to cease Purdue from continuing its discharge of PFAS-laden wastewater into the community,” he said.
Brockstedt described the ruling as “another win” in ongoing litigation against Perdue. However, he said it was the residents who continued to suffer from the ongoing litigation.
“Unfortunately, it continues to be a loss for the residents in the area because, despite being identified by the Maryland Department of the Environment as the ‘responsible person’ for the contamination in the area, they continue to litigate,” Brockstedt said. “They continue to operate their facility unabated.”
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.”
Gallagher did not accept two of the four counts, which alleged that PFAS posed an “imminent and substantial danger” to residents’ environment and health, and that Perdue violated federal law by contaminating underground drinking water beyond the facility’s boundary. However, she did accept the first two, which alleged violations of a prohibition on open dumping.
“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.
However, despite the dismissal of two of the claims, Brockstedt reaffirmed that the court’s ruling benefited the community, though he said the community is losing because of Perdue’s importance to it.
“They’re an important employer. We want their business to not only survive this litigation, but we want them to thrive,” he said. “But we want them to do it in an environmentally compliant and responsible manner.”
Brockstedt said the case under RCRA will now go into its discovery phase and that they would “pursue every legal avenue to ensure the company is held fully accountable.”
