Mauldin
Mauldin v. 3M Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
A TRUE COPY
‘A ATIEST: ROBIN L. BLUME, CLERK BY: dl. = Shea,
DEPUTY CLERK UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2873
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the three actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders that conditionally transferred their respective actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Defendants Tyco Fire Products, LP, and Chemguard, Inc., oppose all three motions. Defendant 3M Company opposes the motions brought by the Mauldin and Poynter-Abell plaintiffs. Defendants Dawn Chemical Corporation of Wisconsin, Inc., and Royal Chemical Company, Ltd., oppose the motion brought by plaintiffs in the Nessel action. In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in all three actions argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is lacking, and that their pending motions for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an…