Products Liability Law Reporter
Military Products
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
District court grants plaintiffs’ motions to remand 3M earplug suit
October/November 2021A federal district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ products liability claims against Combat Arms Earplugs makers 3M Co. and Aearo Technologies LLC.
Former users of Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2), sued 3M Co. and Aearo Technologies, alleging that the defendants’ failure to provide adequate instructions and warnings on the proper use of the CAEv2 led to hearing loss and tinnitus. 3M removed the case to federal court, asserting the government contractor defense, the combatant activities exception, and federal question jurisdiction regarding the plaintiffs’ claims that arose in Iraq and Afghanistan. The plaintiffs moved to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The court found that in previous cases, 3M had failed to raise colorable government contractor and combatant activities defenses to the conduct alleged here. Similarly, the court said, in other cases, 3M failed to show that federal question jurisdiction extended to claims arising in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the court concluded that 3M is precluded from asserting these grounds for removal in the case at bar.
For the plaintiffs’ CAEv2-related claims allegedly arising in Japan, the court found that 3M failed to cite any statute showing that Congress had intended to extend federal jurisdiction to encompass the type of failure-to-warn claims brought by the plaintiffs. A bilateral agreement between Japan and the United States relates to acts or omissions committed in Japan by members or employees of the U.S. military and does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the United States, the court said. Moreover, the court found that Congress has not enforced products liability law for conduct arising on U.S. military bases in Japan.
Consequently, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Citation: Adams v. 3M Co., 2021 WL 3206832 (D. Minn. July 29, 2021).
Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Amanda M. Williams, Daniel E. Gustafson, AAJ member Alicia N. Sieben, AAJ member Matthew J. Barber, and AAJ member William R. Sieben, all of Minneapolis.