Perdue cancels mediation in PFAS class action suit, plaintiffs request sanction

Salisbury, Md. – On Wednesday, attorneys representing more than 550 Salisbury families involved in the two-year litigation against Perdue for PFAS groundwater contamination announced they are asking a federal court to impose a sanction on the company after it canceled mediation two weeks before it was set to begin.

“After delaying document production, on the eve of mediation, two days before their mediation statement was due, they’re now saying, ‘oh, no, no, it’s not our problem. We didn’t cause this,'” Brockstedt Mandalas Federico Partner Chase Brockstedt said. BMF is representing the plaintiffs.

Brockstedt said pursuing a sanction against Perdue is necessary after incurring over $200,000 in costs for the now-canceled mediation.

Earlier this year, the parties began exploring whether mediation could help resolve the case. Brockstedt said that, after the preliminary process, Perdue agreed to a three-day mediation from July 27 through 29, and asked the court to keep the case on hold while they prepared documentation to present during the mediation period.

“Four days after the Court granted that request, Perdue sought permission to add Johnson Controls and 3M as third-party defendants, alleging that the companies supplied AFFF products and related services at its Salisbury facility,” BMF said in a statement. “Perdue had known since at least November 2024 that AFFF was a potential source of PFAS at the facility.”

Brockstedt said the process to present their mediation statement by the deadline was costly and involved getting expert analysis. He said BMF spent nearly five months preparing for a mediation that Perdue “abandoned.”

“Really what they’re doing is they’re pulling the rug out from under the community,” he said. “They’re trying to deny responsibility and to deflect it on to other parties instead of taking responsibility, working with us to fix the problem and ultimately compensate area residents.”

Perdue’s General Counsel Herb Frerichs said in a statement that Perdue has tested wells, provided drinking water and installed treatment systems over the past two years and worked closely with the Maryland Department of the Environment to “address this issue responsibly.” He said Perdue was prepared for mediation and wanted to discuss the role of third-party companies that manufactured its firefighting foam, which Perdue claims is the sole source of the PFAS contamination.

“Unfortunately, plaintiff’s counsel unilaterally attempted to avoid any discussion in the mediation about the actual source and cause of the PFAS. Plaintiffs’ conduct therefore has made it impossible to make meaningful progress towards a fair resolution,” he said.

Brockstedt said the plaintiffs are also seeking a lift on the hold on the case which has prevented more discovery on the source of the contamination. He alleges there is still no definitive evidence that the PFAS is limited to the AFFF firefighting foam manufactured by companies 3M and Johnson Controls.

“We do know that AFFF firefighting foam is part of what got the PFAS dispersed onto the facility itself,” he said. “But it’s Perdue’s negligent conduct that made it go off the facility and impact residential properties.”