PCBs, PFAS, and lead contamination cases heading toward trial.
Bay Area Local Governments Seeking Compensation for PCB Contamination
Sher Eding is working alongside co-counsel from Keller Rohrback to represent three California counties and 44 municipalities across the San Francisco Bay region to hold Monsanto accountable for contamination from PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Monsanto manufactured and sold PCBs for decades knowing the harm they would cause. The communities bring claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass, seeking to recover the substantial costs of cleaning up the toxic contamination before it reaches San Francisco Bay. The local governments aim to shift those burdens off their taxpayers and onto the party responsible for the mess. The communities prevailed against all of Monsanto’s demurrers and are now in discovery. No trial date has been set.
County of Contra Costa v. Monsanto Co., CA Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, No. C2202818 | County of San Mateo v. Monsanto Co., CA Superior Court, County of San Mateo, No. 22-CIV-01667 | County of Marin v. Monsanto Co., CA Superior Court, County of Marin No. CIV 2202843
The State of Maryland PFAS Litigation Against Gore-Tex Manufacturer
For over 50 years, W.L. Gore & Associates discharged toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) into the environment from more than a dozen industrial facilities in Cecil County, Maryland. So, in December 2024, on behalf of the Maryland Departments of the Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, the State of Maryland sued the company famous for its Gore-Tex chemical fabric coating, with Sher Edling serving as outside counsel. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and alleges CERCLA violations and other claims. The State seeks broad relief from Gore, including recovery of the costs of investigating the scope of contamination; the costs of drinking water testing, monitoring, and treatment; the costs to remediate the contamination; and damages for harm to state-owned land and resources. The case is now in discovery awaiting a trial date.
Maryland v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03656 (D. Md.)
Lead Contamination Litigation
Sher Edling—with the California Department of Justice and Nidel & Nace, PLLC—has represented California’s toxics department in multiple trials to recover the state’s response costs for one of the most significant contaminated sites in the state. The facility, a former secondary lead smelter plant near downtown Los Angeles, released massive volumes of lead, other heavy metals, chlorinated solvents, and other pollutants over approximately nine decades of operations. The department primarily asserts cost-recovery claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and California Hazardous Substance Account Act (“HSAA”). After multiple bench trials and over five dozen motions, all major defendants have been found jointly and severally liable for the department’s past and future response costs at the facility. The parties are awaiting a decision governing the scope of Defendants’ financial liability for the cleanup.
California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. NL Indus., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-11293 (C.D. Cal.)
