In 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) brought suit against Dupont and 3M seeking clean-up, removal, and costs for what NJ officials claimed was more than 100 years of indiscriminate dumping of thousands of pollutants into the Chambers Works compound in Salem County, NJ.
According to the pleadings, among the contaminants released were per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known for their motility and resistance to biodegradation, and linked to various kinds of cancer. The complaint alleges PFAS have been knowingly dispersed into the air, ground soil, and drinking water for decades. Dupont and 3M filed answers, denying the knowing or intentional release of any hazardous substances.
As the case drew into its fifth year in 2024, following dozens of pleadings and thousands of pages of discovery, NJDEP filed a third amended complaint in the summer of last year, renewing its request for a jury trial. In a filing in late January, Dupont and 3M moved to strike the request for a jury trial.
At the heart of Dupont’s and 3M’s argument is that most of the relief sought by NJDEP is equitable, i.e., NJDEP’s claims under various federal Spill Acts that seek restoration and remediation — more specifically, claims that seek to ‘restore’ New Jersey to its position before the defendants’ alleged conduct. As the defendants argue, the federal Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not apply to such equitable relief, necessitating that NJDEP’s claims be limited to non-jury bench trial.
The state recently responded in kind with a 40-page brief, arguing that the relief sought distills into three classes of monetary damages, e.g., future costs, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, and therefore constitutes legal relief. To the strength of its point, the NJDEP cited to the court’s opinion in New Jersey Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2018 WL 2317534 (D.N.J. May 22, 2018), where the same court had rejected a similar motion to strike a jury by defendants, holding that the state, levying similar Spill Act violations, was allowed to have a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
For their part, Dupont and 3M have replied, arguing that Hess is an unreported, and unbinding, district court decision that turns on plaintiffs’ unjustified rejection of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its governance of the equitable remedies available to Plaintiffs.
The NJDEP declined further comment on the ongoing matter.
