Baker Et Al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHERN DIVISION
CONSTANCE BAKER;
BRYAN BARKLEY;
MICHAEL BURRELL;
RUTH CHAVIS; 7:23‐cv‐01666
STEVEN CHESLEY;
ATRIA CLARK; JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
JOSE COLON;
DENTIA HALL; COMPLAINT
MARK HAYES;
ZACHARY HOLMES;
DEBRA JOHNSON;
JOSEPH JOHNSON;
WENDY KOZELOUZEK;
RICHARD McCLENDON;
MICHAEL McKAY;
CHERYL McLAUGHLIN;
HELEN McMILLON;
LISA MINNICK;
ALBERT PEARCE;
NATHANIEL & LIZA SHAW;
JOSEPH STACK; and
WENDY THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CORTEVA, INC.;
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
DOWDUPONT, INC.;
EIDP, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; and
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
Defendants.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Page 1 of 35
Case 7:23-cv-01666-D-BM Document 1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 35
1. This case arises from a nearly four decades-long history of Defendants discharging
toxic substances into the Cape Fear River (hereinafter “River”) without regard for the resulting
impact on downstream consumers and the environment. Plaintiffs are among those impacted by
Defendants’ negligent conduct and have filed this action seeking judicial redress for their property-
based injuries.
2. Defendants willfully and wantonly discharged toxic, cancer-causing chemicals into
the River, which serves as the primary source of drinking water for thousands of North Carolina
residents. Defendants have owned and operated the Fayetteville Works Plant (hereinafter "FWP")
for more than four decades. FWP is a manufacturing facility located at 22824 NC Highway 87
West, Fayetteville NC 28306-7332. Defendants routinely discharged wastewater containing per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (hereinafter “PFAS”), such as the ammonium salt of
hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (hereinafter “GenX”), directly into the River from the FWF.
3. Defendants discharged GenX and other PFAS at the FWP knowing they were
extremely dangerous and that even exceedingly small doses could cause liver, testicular,
pancreatic, uterine and kidney cancer, as well as thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, among other illnesses. Nevertheless, Defendants discharged these
chemicals into the air and water surrounding the FWP, simply to avoid the expense of taking safety
precautions. Knowing that their conduct was wrongful, Defendants lied to government regulators,
claiming that they were either disposing of PFAS at a secure, off-site facility or incinerating them.
These lies endangered nearby residents by preventing state regulators and local water providers
from taking those actions necessary to protect them from drinking dangerous amounts of GenX
and other PFAS discharged from the FWP.
4. Defendants have a long history of polluting the environment with PFAS, most
notably in connection with the bio-persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic chemical
Page 2 of 35
perfluorooctanoic acid (hereinafter “PFOA” or “C8”). In or around 1951, Old DuPont began using
PFOA to make consumer products, including the immensely popular Teflon® non-stick coating
used in cookware, and the company reaped huge profits from its manufacture of products
containing PFOA in the ensuing decades. When Old DuPont’s supplier, the 3M Company, decided
in 2002 to phase out its production of PFOA after coming under increasing scrutiny from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA”), Old DuPont began
increasing its manufacturing of PFOA at the FWP, assuring regulators and the public that PFOA
was safe and that any wastewater containing PFOA would be disposed of at a secure, off-site
facility.
5. Only after being sued by nearby residents of another plant in West Virginia that
Old DuPont used to manufacture PFOA, did the public become privy to evidence showing Old
DuPont’s internal knowledge of the hazards PFOA posed to the environment and human health.
In 2015, as part of a settlement with those West Virginia residents, an expert panel of
epidemiologists determined that PFOA discharges at the plant had contaminated the residents’
drinking water and put them at an increased risk of developing kidney cancer, testicular cancer,
ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
6. The impact of this chapter of Defendants’ insidious poisoning of the nation’s rivers
and drinking-water supplies has been devastating, particularly for the residents of New Hanover,
Bladen, Brunswick, Cumberland, and Pender Counties in North Carolina that use the Cape Fear
River as a primary source of drinking water.
7. Bladen, Brunswick, Pender, and New Hanover Counties, for instance, have among
the highest concentrations of liver disease in the United States. In addition, the rate of liver and
testicular cancers in New Hanover County is considerably higher than the state average, the rate
of kidney cancer in Bladen County is significantly higher than the state average, the rate of
Page 3 of 35
pancreatic cancer in Brunswick County is substantially higher than the state average, and the rate
of uterine cancer in Cumberland County is also higher than the state average.
8. The impacted downstream residents in North Carolina include Plaintiffs who
consumed drinking water that had been willfully, recklessly, and negligently contaminated by
Defendants and suffered property-based injuries.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction in this matter per 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
because complete diversity exists between the parties and damages are more than $75,000.00.
Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of North Carolina, and the Defendants are incorporated and
maintain principal places of business in states other than North Carolina.
10. Venue is appropriate per 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because a substantial part of the
property that is the subject of this action is situated in this judicial district and division.
11. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each has personally
availed itself of the benefits and protections of the laws of the State of North Carolina. Each of the
Defendants conducted business and committed torts in North Carolina, by itself or through an
agent or alter ego, which caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe property-based damages within the
state.
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff, CONSTANCE BAKER, currently resides in New Hanover County,
North Carolina, and has resided there for all times relevant to this matter.
13. Plaintiff, BRYAN BARKLEY, currently resides in New Hanover County,
14. Plaintiff, MICHAEL BURRELL, currently resides in Cumberland County,
Page 4 of 35
15. Plaintiff, RUTH CHAVIS, currently resides in New Hanover County,
16. Plaintiff, STEVEN CHESLEY, currently resides in Cumberland County,
17. Plaintiff, ATRIA CLARK, currently resides in New Hanover County,
18. Plaintiff, JOSE COLON, currently resides in Cumberland County,
19. Plaintiff, DENTIA HALL, currently resides in Cumberland County,
20. Plaintiff, MARK HAYES, currently resides in New Hanover County,
21. Plaintiff, ZACHARY HOLMES, currently resides in Brunswick County,
22. Plaintiff, DEBRA JOHNSON, currently resides in New Hanover County,
23. Plaintiff, JOSEPH JOHNSON, currently resides in Cumberland County,
24. Plaintiff, WENDY KOZELOUZEK, currently resides in Cumberland County,
25. Plaintiff, RICHARD McCLENDON, currently resides in Bladen County,
26. Plaintiff, MICHAEL McKAY, currently resides in New Hanover County,
Page 5 of 35
27. Plaintiff, CHERYL McLAUGHLIN, currently resides in Bladen County,
28. Plaintiff, HELEN McMILLON, currently resides in Bladen County,
29. Plaintiff, LISA MINNICK, currently resides in Cumberland County,
30. Plaintiff, ALBERT PEARCE, currently resides in Cumberland County,
31. Plaintiffs, NATHANIEL and LIZA SHAW, currently reside in New Hanover
County, North Carolina, and have resided there for all times relevant to this matter.
32. Plaintiff, JOSEPH STACK, currently resides in Pender County, North Carolina,
and has resided there for all times relevant to this matter.
33. Plaintiff, WENDY THOMAS, currently resides in New Hanover County,
34. Defendant, EIDP, Inc., formerly known as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
(hereinafter “Old DuPont”), is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 974
Centre Road, Wilmington DE 19805-1269. It is subject to service of process via its registered
agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street,
Wilmington DE 19801-1120. Old DuPont owned the FWP from the early 1970s until 2015, when
ownership was shifted to an Old DuPont spin-off company—The Chemours Company.
35. Defendant The Chemours Company (hereinafter “Chemours Co.”) is a
Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located at
1007 North Market Street, Wilmington DE 19801. It is subject to service of process via its
registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center,
Page 6 of 35
1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington DE 19801-1120. In 2015, Old DuPont spun off its
performance chemicals business to Chemours Co., along with vast environmental liabilities which
Chemours Co. assumed, including those related to PFAS like GenX.
36. On information and belief, Chemours Co. was incorporated as a subsidiary of Old
DuPont as of April 30, 2015. From that time until July 2015, Chemours Co. was a wholly owned
subsidiary of Old DuPont.
37. In July 2015, Old DuPont spun off Chemours Co. and transferred to Chemours Co.
its “performance chemicals” business line, which includes its fluoroproducts business, distributing
shares of Chemours Co. stock to Old DuPont stockholders, and Chemours Co. has since been an
independent, publicly traded company. On information and belief, Chemours Co. became the
owner and operator of the FWP as part of the July 2015 spin-off transaction (the “Chemours
Spinoff”).
38. Defendant, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company with its principal place of business located at 1007 North Market Street,
Wilmington DE 19801. It is subject to service of process via its registered agent,
The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street,
Wilmington DE 19801-1120. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a subsidiary of Chemours
Co., and the two entities are referred to in this complaint collectively as “Chemours”. On
information and belief, Chemours Company FC, LLC either currently owns or has very recently
owned and operated the FWP.
39. Defendant, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., formerly known as DowDuPont, Inc.
(hereinafter “New DuPont”), is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at
974 Centre Road, Wilmington DE 19805-1269 and 2211 H H Dow Way, Midland MI 48642.
Page 7 of 35
It is subject to service of process via its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company,
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington DE 19801-1120.
40. On August 31, 2017, Old DuPont merged with The Dow Chemical Company to
create DowDuPont, Inc. (hereinafter “DowDuPont”). Since the merger, DowDuPont has
completed a series of separation transactions to separate its businesses into three independent,
publicly traded companies for materials, science, and specialty products.
41. Defendant Corteva, Inc. (hereinafter “Corteva”) is a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington DE 19805-1269. It is
subject to service of process via its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company,
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington DE 19801-1120.
42. Corteva was initially formed in February 2018 as a subsidiary of DowDuPont. From
that time until June 1, 2019, Corteva was a wholly owned subsidiary of DowDuPont.
43. On June 1, 2019, DowDuPont separated its agriculture business through the spin-
off of Corteva (the “Corteva Spinoff”). On June 1, 2019, DowDuPont distributed to DowDuPont
stockholders all issued and outstanding shares of Corteva common stock by way of a pro-rata
dividend. Following that distribution, Corteva became the direct parent of Old DuPont.
44. Corteva holds certain DowDuPont assets and liabilities, including DowDuPont’s
agriculture and nutritional businesses.
45. On June 1, 2019, DowDuPont, the surviving entity after the spin-off of Corteva and
of another entity known as Dow, Inc., changed its name to DuPont de Nemours, Inc., to be known
as New DuPont. New DuPont retained assets in the specialty products business lines following
the above-described spin-offs, as well as the balance of the financial assets and liabilities of DuPont
not assumed by Corteva.
Page 8 of 35
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Defendants’ Manufacture of GenX and Other PFAS at the FWP
46. The FWP is located near Duart Township in Bladen County, North Carolina, which
is approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Fayetteville and just south of the Bladen-
Cumberland County line. The FWP contains approximately 2,150 acres of relatively flat
undeveloped open land and woodland bounded on the east by the Cape Fear River, on the west by
NC Highway 87, and on the north and south by farmland. The River is approximately 1,850 feet
from the eastern portion of the manufacturing area, while Willis Creek, a tributary of the River, is
approximately 3,000 feet from the northern portion of the manufacturing area. Parts of the Georgia
Branch, another tributary to the River, flow along the FWP’s southern boundary about one mile
southwest of the manufacturing area. A drainage channel leading to the Cape Fear River is located
south of the plant area. It is used as the outfall area (“Outfall 2”) covered by National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NC003573 (the “NPDES Permit”).
47. The segment of the River affected by discharges from Outfall 002 is classified by
the State of North Carolina as “Class WS-IV” surface water, making it a “source of water supply
for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes” as well as for “aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation,
[and] agriculture.” 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0211(1), 2B.0216(1); see also 15A N.C.A.C. 2b.0101; N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 143-214.1(b).
48. The FWP produces a variety of films, fibers, and specialty chemicals, and for years
has had at least five discrete manufacturing areas: (1) Fluromonomers/Nafion; (2) Polymer
processing aid (“PPA”); (3) Butacite; (4) SentryGlas; and (5) Polyvinvyl fluoride (“PVF”). The
wastewater from each of the five manufacturing areas flows through one or more on-site
wastewater treatment plants, where the contaminated wastewater is diluted with hundreds of
Page 9 of 35
thousands of gallons of river water before it is ultimately discharged into the River. This dilution
makes the chemicals harder to detect but does not ultimately reduce the amount of contaminants
flowing into the River.
49. On information and belief, the FWP also has or had had at least one stack that has
operated over the years as a source for airborne emissions of perfluoroalkyl substances, thereby
giving rise to additional water contamination when airborne particles are deposited and dissolve
and/or leach into groundwater. Plume modeling conducted in 2002 by DuPont Engineering
demonstrates that Old DuPont’s PFOA manufacturing processes would give rise to an airborne
APFO (PFOA) plume with a “hot spot” directly over Willis Creek, which flows into River.1
50. PFAS are highly toxic to humans. Scientists have linked exposure to PFAS such as
GenX to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, liver disease, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, among other illnesses. While Defendants have manufactured a number of
PFAS at the FTP that were discharged into the River, the focus of this action is GenX and other
PFAS that have never been used to manufacture firefighting foam. Conversely, this action does
not assert claims arising from contamination involving perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”), and/or their chemical precursors.2
B. Defendants’ Knowledge of the Threats PFAS Discharges Pose to Public Health and
the Environment
51. Since the 1980s, Defendants have used PFAS at its FWP. In the early 2000s, when
government regulators pressured Old DuPont to stop using PFOA in its manufacturing processes,
1
See also, Legacy, and emerging airborne per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) collected on PM2.5 filters in
close proximity to a fluoropolymer manufacturing facility,
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/em/d2em00358a/unauth
2
For this reason, all references in this Complaint to the discharge of “GenX and other PFAS” at the FWP should be
interpreted as excluding PFOS and PFOA, as Plaintiff is not asserting any claims arising from contamination
involving PFOS or PFOA.
Page 10 of 35
Old DuPont (and later Chemours Co.) began to replace PFOA with its close chemical cousin,
GenX. However, GenX may be even more toxic than PFOA. In addition, Defendants have
continued to discharge Nafion byproducts 1 and 2, long-chain C7 PFAS produced only by
Defendants, which have toxicity characteristics that are like PFOA.
52. Undeterred, undaunted, and uncaring for the results of its own toxicity studies,
Defendants have discharged GenX, Nafion byproducts 1 and 2, and other PFAS into the River,
showing the same cold disregard for human health that it showed in poisoning the Ohio River with
PFOA. And, just as they did with PFOA, Defendants has concealed its dangerous discharge
practices from government regulators and the public.
53. Defendants have been studying the health effects of the PFECA’s known as Gen X
since approximately 1963, when it conducted an acute oral toxicity study in rats to determine the
lethal dose for exposure to Gen X’s ammonium salt. DuPont’s internal data studies have
demonstrated an association between Gen X and various health effects in laboratory animals that
are consistent with the effects of other PFASs, including effects in the liver, kidney, pancreas,
testicles, and immune system.3 Data from Defendants’ various animal studies indicate that Gen X
is an animal carcinogen in multiple organ systems in both male and female rats, and that Gen X
poses reproductive/developmental risks, as well as toxicity in the liver, kidneys, the hematological
system, the adrenal glands, the stomach, as well as other adverse effects.4
54. The toxicity results from reports of animal studies indicate that Gen X is a
particularly toxic PFC. A substantive body of human studies have not been done at this time.
However, based on the available animal studies, Gen X may be as toxic or more toxic to humans
3
See TSCA Non-Confidential Business Information submitted to E.P.A. 8(e) Coordinator, USEPA, for 8EHQ-06-
16478,
4
See data reported in Lisa Craig, “H-28548: Combined Chronic Toxicity/Oncogenicity Study 2-Year Oral Gavage
Study in Rats”– Laboratory Project ID: DuPont-18405-1238” (MPI Research, Inc., Mattawan, Michigan 2013)
(sponsored by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company)
Page 11 of 35
than PFOA. Likely human adverse effects from Gen X exposure could range from
reproductive/developmental adverse effects to adverse liver effects, to human immune
system/RNA messaging disruption adverse impacts, to stomach, ocular, and tongue toxicity, to
human cancer. Human exposure to Gen X in drinking water is continuous, moreover, unlike the
exposure in existing animal studies.
55. Despite the results of these and similar studies, Defendants repeatedly failed to
recover and capture (destroy) or recycle GenX from its wastewater. Instead, Defendants continued
to discharge significant quantities of GenX into the River, the groundwater, and the air surrounding
the FWP. Those discharges constitute a willful, wanton, and reckless risk of injury to human health
and the environment. The impacts of which are likely to continue to manifest for decades to come.
56. PFAS gets into the environment from industrial facilities that either make them or
use them to make other products. It also enters the environment when released from PFC-
containing consumer products during their use and disposal.
57. PFAS can remain in the environment, particularly in water, for many years. PFAS
can move through soil and into groundwater or be carried in air. GenX, compared to other PFAS,
stays in the blood of humans for a relatively short time. This necessitates the use of other
biomarkers to determine the amount of GenX exposure over prolonged periods.
C. Government Regulators and the Research Community Acknowledge the Health and
Environmental Risks Posed by GenX and Other PFAS
58. In November 2016, a team of prestigious scholars from North Carolina State
University and researchers from other institutions published a study that identified GenX as one
of several PFAS detected at the King’s Bluff intake site along the Cape Fear River. Between June
14 and December 2, 2013, the research team took daily samples of raw water from the King’s
Bluff intake located downstream from the FWP, as well as from two areas located upstream from
the FWP. The upstream sampling not only revealed the presence of so-called “legacy PFAS” at
Page 12 of 35
King’s Bluff but also detected GenX at levels as high as 4,500 parts per trillion (“ng/L” or “ppt”),
with a mean (average) concentration of Gen X of 631 ppt—both well in excess of the current state
health goal of 140 ppt.
59. The North Carolina State researchers have continued their work as part of an
ongoing GenX Exposure Study5.
60. GenX and the other PFAS found in the River have consistently been detected at
levels far exceeding the EPA’s interim HAL for PFOA/PFOS and North Carolina State
equivalents. It is believed that there are a number of other chemical compounds that have not been
specifically named or identified that have also been released from Defendants’ operations at the
FWP and have contaminated the River at unsafe levels for downstream consumers and the
environment at large.
61. On June 19, 2017, environmental regulators in Fayetteville and Wilmington began
sampling and testing 13 locations along the Cape Fear River for the presence of GenX; their results
showed that finished water from four water treatment plants had GenX concentrations exceeding
the state’s safety standard of 140 ppt, including a) Bladen Bluffs (790 ppt); b) NW Brunswick (910
and 695 ppt); c) Pender County (421 ppt); and d) CFPU Sweeney (1100 and 726 ppt). On June 20,
2017, under extreme public pressure, Chemours announced it would “capture, remove and safely
dispose of” wastewater containing GenX, instead of discharging it into the Cape Fear River.
Chemours did not mention that it had already contaminated the groundwater and was still emitting
GenX into the air.
62. Very recent testing suggests that GenX and other PFAS may have contaminated
plants and vegetables around the FWP. On a video call between Dutch scientists (who are studying
5
https://genxstudy.ncsu.edu/
Page 13 of 35
GenX contamination at Chemours’ plant in Dordrecht, Netherlands) and North Carolina’s science
advisory board, the Dutch scientists noted that carrots, beets, lettuce, and other vegetables at 10
sites around the Chemours plant had been tested for PFAS. Approximately 40% were
contaminated with GenX and/or PFOA. Thus, North Carolina residents may have been or be
currently eating—as well as drinking—PFAS and other toxic chemical compounds discharged at
the FWP.
63. In November 2018, the North Carolina State University Center for Human Health
and the Environment released preliminary results from a study of blood and urine samples taken
from individuals living nearby the FWP plant who consumed water from private wells and from
individuals living in New Hanover County. The authors reported that four newly identified
PFAS—as well as older PFAS such as PFOA—were detected in the blood of the study
participants’ blood. They further reported that 99% of the participants’ blood tested positive for
Nafion byproduct 2 at a median concentration of nearly 3 parts per billion (ppb). The study also
confirmed that individuals who live near the FWP have more PFAS in their blood than individuals
who live in other places (e.g., individuals living in Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, as well as Dayton, Ohio).
64. On February 25, 2019, Chemours and the State of North Carolina signed, and the
Bladen County Superior Court entered a Consent Order that, among other things, ordered
Chemours to provide remedial measures to certain parties affected by Defendants’ wrongful
discharge of PFAS, including households, businesses, schools, and public buildings that use
drinking-water wells.
65. Specifically, the Consent Order requires Defendant Chemours to provide public
water supplies, or under certain circumstances, whole-building filtration systems (and
maintenance) to those parties whose drinking-water wells are contaminated by GenX and other
Page 14 of 35
PFAS in a total amount exceeding 140 ppt or any applicable health advisory standard (currently
set at 140 ppt), whichever is lower. Such parties may alternatively opt to receive reverse osmosis
systems for every drinking water sink in their building.
66. The Consent Order also requires Chemours to provide a minimum of three under-
sink reverse osmosis water-filtration systems (or equivalent treatment) to any party with a
drinking-water well contaminated by GenX (or any other PFC specifically listed on an attachment
to the Consent Order) if the well-water tests above 10 ppt for any given compound or exceeds 70
ppt for the total concentration of all listed compounds. For any resident who receives permanent
water supplies because of the Consent Order, Chemours must also pay for any and all water bills
for each affected party for 20 years up to $75 per month, subject to adjustment by DEQ every 2
years for certain criteria specified in the Consent Order. Chemours is also required to provide
ongoing testing of water for certain residents, as well as bottled water until the remedial measures
provided for in the Consent Order are executed or a party declines the remedial measures provided
therein.
67. On June 15, 2022, the EPA released new drinking water health advisory levels for
four PFAS, including a Final Health Advisory level of 10 ppt for GenX. These health advisories
are “non-enforceable and non-regulatory” and “provide technical information to states agencies
and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methods, and treatment technologies
associated with drinking water contamination.”6 More specifically, EPA HALs “identify levels to
protect all people, including sensitive populations and life stages, from adverse health effects
resulting from exposure throughout their lives to these PFAS in drinking water.” 7 The HALs are
6
See, e.g., EPA, Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS Fact Sheet for Communities at 1 (June 2022),
available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/drinking-water-ha-pfas-factsheet-
communities.pdf. (“EPA PFAS Fact Sheet for Communities”).
7
Id.
Page 15 of 35
calculated to offer a margin of protection against adverse health effects and account for other
potential sources of exposure beyond drinking water (e.g., food, air, consumer products, etc.),
which provides an additional layer of protection.8
D. Difficulties of Removing and Remediating Contamination from GenX and Other

PFAS at the FWP and Downstream Communities
68. GenX and the other PFAS discharged at the FWP will be exceedingly difficult to
remove from North Carolina residents’ pipes, fittings, and fixtures. Scientific studies have
consistently demonstrated that PFAS and Nafion wastes bond with cells, including cells in the thin
layer of microorganisms that coats municipal and residential pipes, water heaters, fixtures, and
appliances, sometimes called a “biofilm.”
69. These biofilms can be difficult—if not impossible—to remove. But removing them
is essential: individual microbes in a biofilm routinely die and break off from the film. The
continuous dying and detachment of cells releases PFAS, including PFOAs, GenX and Nafion
wastes, back into the water supply. In addition to bonding with biofilm, PFAS, PFOAs and PFOS
such as GenX and Nafion wastes can adsorp (i.e., chemically bond) directly with the iron and iron
oxide in pipes. Thus, these compounds can then “desorp” back into the water supply.
70. PFAS, GenX, and the Nafion byproducts also exist in small stagnant pockets of
water trapped in scale throughout homes’ plumbing systems. If these small pockets of water are
ever disturbed, they can release the toxins back into drinking water. These compounds reside in
bacteria, biofilm, scale, iron, and iron oxide in the bottom of water heaters, the nooks and crannies
of rusted pipes, and valves, elbows, and water fixtures, among other water-infrastructure locations.
The pipes and fixtures thus act as a reservoir or sponge, continuously attracting and discharging
toxic compounds back into the water supply. As such, true and lasting remediation can only be
8
See id.
Page 16 of 35
accomplished by replacing pipes, fittings, appliances, and fixtures and installing sufficient
filtration systems from the water source all the way to the end-user cup/shower head/etc.
71. Currently, there is no known means to filter GenX and certain other legacy PFAS
out of the water supply on a large-scale, long-term basis. And even if drinking water utilities
develop a filtering method, GenX and other PFAS are already bound to the bio-films in municipal
pipes and residential pipes, fittings, fixtures, and appliances. The only solution is to: (i) install a
sophisticated water filtration system at the juncture connecting municipal pipes to the pipes for
individual homes and businesses; (ii) remove and replace plumbing, fixtures, fittings, and
appliances inside individual homes and businesses; and (iii) provide bottled water to residents in
the interim. Meanwhile, until these remedial actions are complete, the residents will need to be
supplied with bottled water for daily use. Many residents have already purchased bottled water for
themselves to ensure the health and safety of their families.
E. Defendants’ Fraudulent Transfers
72. Defendants have engaged in a series of transactions in an effort to shield assets
from, and otherwise hinder or delay Plaintiffs and other creditors.
73. In 2013, Old DuPont announced its intention to separate its performance chemicals
business, including fluoroproducts, through a U.S. tax-free spin-off to shareholders. In this spinoff,
a newly formed subsidiary would assume significant environmental and tort liabilities of Old
DuPont, pay a multibillion-dollar dividend to Old DuPont, and be spun-off to Old DuPont’s
shareholders.
74. Chemours Co. was formed in February 2014 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Old
DuPont, remaining so until July 1, 2015, when Old DuPont completed the spin-off, along with the
assumption by Chemours Co. of vast environmental liabilities which included those related to
PFOS and PFOA and fluorosurfactants (“the Chemours Spinoff”).
Page 17 of 35
75. Through their effectuation of the spin-off in July 2015, Chemours Co. and Old
DuPont caused Chemours Co. to transfer valuable assets to Old DuPont, including but not limited
to a $3.9 billion dividend (the “Transfers”), while simultaneously assuming significant liabilities
(the “Assumed Liabilities”).
76. At the time the Transfers were made and Assumed Liabilities were assumed,
Chemours had a separate board; however, the board was controlled by Old DuPont employees.
77. At the time the Transfers were made and Assumed Liabilities were assumed, Old
DuPont had been sued, threatened with suit, and/or had knowledge of the likelihood of litigation
to be filed regarding Old DuPont’s liabilities for damages and injuries from the manufacture, sale,
and/or disposal of PFAS-containing products. For example:
a) In 2005, Old DuPont agreed to pay $16.5 million in civil penalties to the
EPA to resolve eight counts of alleged violations of environmental statues
concerning PFAS contamination.
b) Also in 2005, Old DuPont agreed to pay $343 million to settle the class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of 70,000 residents of the Ohio River Valley relating
to the contamination of the watershed with PFOA. This settlement also created the
C8 Science Panel, which, as discussed above, conducted studies on the health
effects of PFOA exposure between 2005 and 2013.
c) In 2015, at the time the Transfers were made and Assumed Liabilities were
assumed, another MDL involving over 3,500 PFOA-related personal injury claims
brought by citizens of Ohio and West Virginia was pending in Ohio.9
9
On February 13, 2017, following three multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in three bellwether trials in the Ohio MDL,
Old DuPont and Chemours Co. agreed to pay $671 million to resolve the Ohio MDL, with an additional $125
million promised by Chemours Co. for future PFOA costs not covered by the settlement for a period of five years.
Page 18 of 35
78. The assets Old DuPont transferred to Chemours were unreasonably small in relation
to the business or transaction and to the Assumed Liabilities. As a result, Chemours Co. did not
receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for its assumption of liabilities of Old DuPont.
79. Old DuPont knew or reasonably should have known that Chemours Co. would incur
debts beyond its ability to pay as they became due. Through the Transfers and Assumed Liabilities
Old DuPont and Chemours Co. limited the availability of assets to cover all of the liability for
damages and injuries arising from Old DuPont’s manufacture and sale of PFAS-containing
products.
80. On information and belief, Old Dupont and Chemours Co. entered into the
Transfers and provided for Chemours Co.’s assumption of the Assumed Liabilities with actual
intent to hinder or delay Plaintiffs and other creditors.
81. The assumption of liabilities by Chemours Co. did not relieve Old DuPont of
liability for the claims asserted herein or other liabilities related to Old DuPont’s manufacture and
sale of PFAS-containing products.
82. In furtherance of Old DuPont’s efforts to shield assets from and otherwise hinder
or delay creditors, in December 2015 Old DuPont and The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”)
completed a merger in which each of them merged into a separate subsidiary of a newly formed
entity, DowDuPont, Inc. (“DowDuPont”). On information and belief, Old DuPont and Dow
merged into separate subsidiaries of DowDuPont as part of an effort to avoid exposing Dow to the
existing liabilities of DuPont, including liability for the claims asserted herein and other PFAS
liabilities.
83. Following the Dow-DuPont merger, DowDuPont engaged in a series of significant
internal reorganizations and other transactions (the “Corteva Spinoff”), including the transactions
provided for in an April 1, 2019 Separation and Distribution Agreement (among DowDuPont and
Page 19 of 35
its two subsidiaries, Dow, Inc. and Corteva, Inc. On information and belief, as part of the Corteva
Spinoff, significant assets of Old DuPont were transferred to DowDuPont and Corteva for less
than reasonably equivalent value, leaving Old DuPont with assets that were unreasonably small in
relation to its business. After these transactions, Old DuPont had assets insufficient to pay its
liabilities, including its liabilities for the claims asserted herein and other PFAS liabilities.
84. The Corteva Spinoff was completed on or about June 1, 2019, when: (a) the
“Agriculture Business” of Old DuPont was held by Corteva, (b) 100% of the stock of Old DuPont
was held by Corteva, (c) the stock of Corteva was spun-off to the shareholders of DowDuPont, (d)
the stock of the Dow, Inc. subsidiary of DowDuPont was distributed to the shareholders of
DowDuPont, and (e) the “Specialty Products Business” and certain other assets of DuPont were
retained by DowDuPont (whose name was changed to become the entity referred to herein as New
DuPont).
85. On information and belief, Defendants engaged in the Corteva Spinoff with actual
intent to hinder or delay Plaintiffs and other creditors.
86. Further, in effecting the Corteva Spinoff, Defendants knew or reasonably should
have known that Old DuPont would no longer have sufficient assets to pay its liabilities, including
its liabilities for the claims asserted herein and other PFAS liabilities.
87. Further, as part of the DowDuPont Separation Agreement, Corteva and New
DuPont assumed direct financial responsibility for certain liabilities of Old DuPont including, on
information and belief, liability for the claims asserted herein and other PFAS liabilities. Corteva
assumed responsibility for 29% of such liabilities and New DuPont assumed responsibility for
71% thereof.
Page 20 of 35
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES
88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
A. CONSTANCE BAKER
89. Plaintiff, CONSTANCE BAKER, has been a resident of New Hanover County
since 2019. Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to the public water system.
90. Plaintiff suffers from property damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ actions
and inactions alleged herein.
91. Among proximately caused damages, Plaintiff suffers from diminution of property
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in New Hanover
County.
B. BRYAN BARKLEY
92. Plaintiff, BRYAN BARKLEY, has been a resident of New Hanover County since
2014. Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to the public water system.
County.
C. MICHAEL BURRELL
95. Plaintiff, MICHAEL BURRELL, has been a resident of Cumberland County since
Page 21 of 35
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in Cumberland
County.
D. RUTH CHAVIS
98. Plaintiff, RUTH CHAVIS, has been a resident of New Hanover County since 1996.
Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to the public water system.
County.
E. STEVEN CHESLEY
101. Plaintiff, STEVEN CHESLEY, has been a resident of Cumberland County since
County.
F. ATRIA CLARK
104. Plaintiff, ATRIA CLARK, has been a resident of Brunswick County since 2018.
Page 22 of 35
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in Brunswick County.
G. JOSE COLON
107. Plaintiff, JOSE COLON, has been a resident of Cumberland County since 2009.
Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to a private well.
County.
H. DENTIA HALL
110. Plaintiff, DENTIA HALL, has been a resident of Cumberland County since 1995.
County.
I. MARK HAYES
113. Plaintiff, MARK HAYES, has been a resident of New Hanover County since 2014.
Page 23 of 35
County.
J. ZACHARY HOLMES
116. Plaintiff, ZACHARY HOLMES, has been a resident of Brunswick County since
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in Brunswick County.
K. DEBRA JOHNSON
119. Plaintiff, DEBRA JOHNSON, has been a resident of New Hanover County since
County.
L. JOSEPH JOHNSON
122. Plaintiff, JOSEPH JOHNSON, has been a resident of Cumberland County since
Page 24 of 35
County.
M. WENDY KOZELOUZEK
125. Plaintiff, WENDY KOZELOUZEK, has been a resident of Cumberland County
since 2022. Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to the public water system.
County.
N. RICHARD McCLENDON
128. Plaintiff, RICHARD McCLENDON, has been a resident of Bladen County since
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in Bladen County.
O. MICHAEL McKAY
131. Plaintiff, MICHAEL McKAY, has been a resident of New Hanover County since
Page 25 of 35
County.
P. CHERYL McLAUGHLIN
134. Plaintiff, CHERYL McLAUGHLIN, has been a resident of Bladen County since
2008. Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to a private well.
135. .
Q. HELEN McMILLON
138. Plaintiff, HELEN McMILLON, has been a resident of Bladen County since 2008.
R. LISA MINNICK
141. Plaintiff, LISA MINNICK, has been a resident of Cumberland County since 2008.
Page 26 of 35
County.
S. ALBERT PEARCE
144. Plaintiff, ALBERT PEARCE, has been a resident of Cumberland County since
County.
T. NATHANIEL & LIZA SHAW
147. Plaintiffs, NATHANIEL and LIZA SHAW, have been residents of New Hanover
County since 2023. Plaintiffs’ current residence is connected to the public water system.
148. Plaintiffs suffer from property damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ actions
149. Among proximately caused damages, Plaintiffs suffer from diminution of property
value and trespass to real property and chattel at their current residence in New Hanover County.
U. JOSEPH STACK
150. Plaintiff, JOSEPH STACK, has been a resident of Pender County since 1998.
Page 27 of 35
value and trespass to real property and chattel at Plaintiff’s current residence in Pender County.
V. WENDY THOMAS
153. Plaintiff, WENDY THOMAS, has been a resident of New Hanover County since
2004. Plaintiff’s current residence is connected to a private well.
County.
COUNT I : NEGLIGENCE
157. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care.
158. As alleged herein, Defendants, individually and collectively, breached their duty of
reasonable care by allowing contaminants to be released into the Cape Fear River, as well as the
drinking water and the airshed of New Hanover, Brunswick, Bladen, Cumberland, and Pender
Counties.
159. Upon learning of the release of the contaminants in 1980, Defendants owed
Plaintiffs a continuing duty to act reasonably to remediate, contain, and eliminate the
contamination before it injured Plaintiffs properties and to act reasonably to minimize the related
property damage.
160. Defendants breached that duty by continuing to contaminate the local water supply
and airshed, and by failing to act reasonably in providing usable water to Plaintiffs. Furthermore,
Page 28 of 35
Defendants failed to take reasonable, adequate, and sufficient steps or action to eliminate, correct,
or remedy any contamination after it occurred.
161. Defendants further breached that duty by failing to timely notify Plaintiffs of the
contamination of the Cape Fear River, as well as the airshed, and the drinking water of New
Hanover, Brunswick, Bladen, Cumberland, and Pender Counties, and of the presence of
contaminants in the ground.
162. As a result of Defendants’ breach of their duty to remediate the contamination,
prevent the discharge of the contamination, and timely notify Plaintiffs of the contamination,
Plaintiffs were forestalled from undertaking effective and immediate remedial measures, and
Plaintiffs have expended and/or will be forced to expend significant resources to test, monitor, and
remediate the effects of the Defendants’ negligence for many years into the future.
163. Defendants’ breach of their duty to exercise reasonable care proximately caused
damage to Plaintiffs’ properties. More specifically, as explained above, Defendants’ conduct
caused toxic PFAS to flow onto and into Plaintiffs’ land, wells, pipes, fixtures, and appliances.
Plaintiffs’ real property is, therefore, less valuable—and someone will have to spend money on
remediation, including cleaning and replacing pipes, fixtures, and appliances. Plaintiffs will also
have to spend money to obtain bottled water, rather than obtaining water from clean, functioning
pipes, and install and maintain filtration systems (including upkeep and maintenance) needed to
avoid additional exposure to Defendants’ PFAS.
COUNT II : GROSS NEGLIGENCE
165. As alleged herein, Defendants, individually and collectively, caused drinking water
with concentrations of GenX, and on information and belief other toxic chemicals, to be provided
Page 29 of 35
to Plaintiffs, in contravention of drinking water standards. As such, Defendants, either with gross
negligence, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and/or intentionally, contaminated the Cape Fear River
and the drinking water of New Hanover, Brunswick, Bladen, Cumberland, and Pender Counties,
and contaminated the accessible tap water of Plaintiffs.
166. Defendants’ conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern
for whether injury would result to Plaintiffs.
167. In addition, Defendants’ breach of their duty to exercise reasonable care
proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs’ properties.
COUNT III : NEGLIGENCE PER SE
169. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to follow standards of conduct set forth in laws,
regulations, and permits, whose purpose is to ensure public safety.
170. By allowing GenX, and on information and belief, related contaminants, to be
released into the Cape Fear River as well as the drinking water and airshed of New Hanover,
Brunswick, Bladen, Cumberland, and Pender Counties, Defendants violated federal and state
public safety statutes and implementing regulations designed to safeguard human health and
protect the environment, including, among others, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
171. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of these standards,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continues to suffer property damage, as described above.
COUNT IV : PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE
Page 30 of 35
173. Defendants’ acts and omissions in discharging contaminants into the air and water
supply in and around the Cape Fear River caused and continue to cause substantial and
unreasonable interference with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties and have
materially diminished and continue to diminish the value of such properties.
174. As further detailed in the allegations herein, when Defendants discharged
contaminants into the air and the water supply in and around the Cape Fear River, Defendants
knew that the discharge would invade Plaintiffs’ interest in the use and enjoyment of their land.
Additionally, Defendants’ willful and wanton discharge of contaminants into the air and water
supply in and around the Cape Fear River was negligent and/or reckless.
175. Defendants’ substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment
of Plaintiffs’ properties and continuing substantial and unreasonable interference with such use
and enjoyment constitutes a continuing private and public nuisance.
176. Defendants’ contamination has injured Plaintiffs’ properties in a manner that is
special to, and not shared by, the general public.
177. Defendants’ nuisances proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs’ properties.
COUNT V : TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AND REAL PROPERTY
179. Defendants’ acts and omissions in willfully and wantonly discharging contaminants
into the water supply in and around the Cape Fear River have resulted and continue to result in the
release and threatened release of toxic chemicals at, under, onto, and into Plaintiffs’ properties.
180. The toxic chemicals present on Plaintiffs’ properties originate at the FWP were at
all relevant times hereto, and continue to be, the property of Defendants.
Page 31 of 35
181. The invasion and presence of the toxic chemicals at, under, onto, and into Plaintiffs’
properties has and continues to be without permission or authority from Plaintiffs or anyone who
could grant such permission or authority.
182. The presence and continuing presence of the toxic chemicals at Plaintiffs’
properties constitutes a continuing trespass.
183. As alleged in this complaint, Defendants’ trespasses proximately caused damage to
Plaintiffs’ real properties and contaminated chattel.
184. In addition, Defendants’ trespasses proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs’ bodies
by violating their bodily integrity (i.e., contaminating their bodies), thereby necessitating future
medical expenses, including regular testing.
COUNT VI : UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq.
186. The North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides that
“[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a).
Defendants’ unfair and deceptive practices alleged herein constitute unfair and deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Defendants’ practices are
illegal, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce and have created
current and continuing unjust costs and damages to Plaintiffs.
187. Defendants’ actions or omissions alleged herein constitute unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in or affecting the stream - or, in this case, River - of commerce.
Page 32 of 35
188. Plaintiffs are injured “person[s]” pursuant to § 75-16 because the business has been
damaged due to Defendants’ unfair or deceptive trade practices.
189. Defendants’ recurrent violations of environmental regulations and otherwise
actions to poison the River offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to Plaintiffs’ property interests.
190. Defendants’ relevant officers, directors, or managers participated in or condoned
the conduct constituting the unfair, unethical, immoral, and/or substantially injurious damages to
Plaintiffs.
191. Plaintiffs allege that the benefit to the public good, far outweighs the inconvenience
to the Defendants of ceasing to engage in the various practices described herein that violate North
Carolina’s unfair and deceptive practices act pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-1.1.
192. Defendants have caused great harm to Plaintiffs, acting with implied malice and an
outrageously conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and safety, such that the imposition of
trebled or punitive damages - whichever is greater - is warranted.
193. Defendants failed to incur expenditures to limit or prevent the release of GenX and
other toxic PFAS into the environment and prevent the contamination of Plaintiffs’ readily
accessible water supplies, failed to incur the costs to timely investigate the impacts on Plaintiffs
and their properties, failed to incur the costs to timely mitigate the impacts on Plaintiffs and their
properties, and failed to incur costs to remediate the contaminated soil, dust and groundwater at
Fayetteville Works. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by these and other failures to make
expenditures to prevent the properties of Plaintiffs from being contaminated with PFASs, GenX
and Nafion byproducts.
Page 33 of 35
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief from the court:
a) An order for an award of compensatory damages;

b) An order for an award of punitive damages;
c) An order for equitable relief;
d) An order for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
e) An order for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses; and
f) An order for all such other relief the Court deems just.
TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury as to all those issues triable as of right.
Respectfully submitted by Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel.
Cary, North Carolina NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC

Dated: December 8, 2023
/s/ Nevin Wisnoski
Nevin Wisnoski (NC # 55038)
1213 Culbreth Drive
Suite 216
Wilmington NC 28405-3639
Tel: (919) 374-1971
Fax: (888) 870-2757
nwisnoski@napolilaw.com
Andrew W. Croner, Esq.

(Special Appearance to be filed)
360 Lexington Avenue
Floor 11
New York, NY 10017-6502
Tel: (212) 397-1000
Fax: (646) 843-7603
acroner@napolilaw.com
Page 34 of 35
NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.

(Special Appearance to be filed)
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
Santurce PR 00907-3982
Tel: (833) 271-4502
Fax: (646) 843-7603
pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Page 35 of 35
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
CONSTANCE BAKER, et al., CORTEVA, INC. , et al.,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff New Hanover County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC

213 Culbreth Drive, Ste 216, Wilmington NC 28405-3639
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ✖ 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government ✖ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 ✖ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
✖ 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity - Property Damage)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Damages to Real Property
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. $50,000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE SEE RELATED CASES ATTACHED DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
12/08/2023 /s/ Nevin Wisnoski (NC # 55038)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE

Case 7:23-cv-01666-D-BM Document 1-1 Filed 12/08/23 PageMAG.
1 ofJUDGE
2
CIVIL COVER SHEET ATTACHMENT
Related Cases
Case Name Case Number Court Judge

Conklin v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01114 EDNC James C. Dever III
Brown, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01409 EDNC James C. Dever III
Ritchie, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01465 EDNC James C. Dever III
Boone, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01473 EDNC James C. Dever III
Godwin, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01500 EDNC James C. Dever III
Bartholomew, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01592 EDNC James C. Dever III
Aaron, et al. v. Corteva, Inc., et al. 7:23-cv-01599 EDNC James C. Dever III
Case 7:23-cv-01666-D-BM Document 1-1 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 2

Baker Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baker Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baker Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. Defendants willfully and wantonly discharged toxic, cancer-causing chemicals into

West, Fayetteville NC 28306-7332. Defendants routinely discharged wastewater containing per-

and polyfluoroalkyl substances (hereinafter “PFAS”), such as the ammonium salt of

induced hypertension, among other illnesses. Nevertheless, Defendants discharged these

and other PFAS discharged from the FWP.

notably in connection with the bio-persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic chemical

ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

River as a primary source of drinking water.

8. The impacted downstream residents in North Carolina include Plaintiffs who

Defendants and suffered property-based injuries.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

maintain principal places of business in states other than North Carolina.

12. Plaintiff, CONSTANCE BAKER, currently resides in New Hanover County,

13. Plaintiff, BRYAN BARKLEY, currently resides in New Hanover County,

14. Plaintiff, MICHAEL BURRELL, currently resides in Cumberland County,

16. Plaintiff, STEVEN CHESLEY, currently resides in Cumberland County,

17. Plaintiff, ATRIA CLARK, currently resides in New Hanover County,

18. Plaintiff, JOSE COLON, currently resides in Cumberland County,

19. Plaintiff, DENTIA HALL, currently resides in Cumberland County,

20. Plaintiff, MARK HAYES, currently resides in New Hanover County,

21. Plaintiff, ZACHARY HOLMES, currently resides in Brunswick County,

22. Plaintiff, DEBRA JOHNSON, currently resides in New Hanover County,

23. Plaintiff, JOSEPH JOHNSON, currently resides in Cumberland County,

24. Plaintiff, WENDY KOZELOUZEK, currently resides in Cumberland County,

25. Plaintiff, RICHARD McCLENDON, currently resides in Bladen County,

26. Plaintiff, MICHAEL McKAY, currently resides in New Hanover County,

28. Plaintiff, HELEN McMILLON, currently resides in Bladen County,

29. Plaintiff, LISA MINNICK, currently resides in Cumberland County,

30. Plaintiff, ALBERT PEARCE, currently resides in Cumberland County,

33. Plaintiff, WENDY THOMAS, currently resides in New Hanover County,

ownership was shifted to an Old DuPont spin-off company—The Chemours Company.

35. Defendant The Chemours Company (hereinafter “Chemours Co.”) is a

registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center,

Chemours Co. assumed, including those related to PFAS like GenX.

subsidiary of Old DuPont.

Wilmington DE 19801. It is subject to service of process via its registered agent,

Wilmington DE 19801-1120. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a subsidiary of Chemours

owned and operated the FWP.

39. Defendant, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., formerly known as DowDuPont, Inc.

Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington DE 19801-1120.

publicly traded companies for materials, science, and specialty products.

41. Defendant Corteva, Inc. (hereinafter “Corteva”) is a Delaware Corporation with

its principal place of business at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington DE 19805-1269. It is

Corporation Trust Center, 1209 North Orange Street, Wilmington DE 19801-1120.

agriculture and nutritional businesses.

not assumed by Corteva.

A. Defendants’ Manufacture of GenX and Other PFAS at the FWP

Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NC003573 (the “NPDES Permit”).

Gen. Stat. § 143-214.1(b).

flowing into the River.

perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”), and/or their chemical precursors.2

continued to discharge Nafion byproducts 1 and 2, long-chain C7 PFAS produced only by

Defendants, which have toxicity characteristics that are like PFOA.

practices from government regulators and the public.

reproductive/developmental adverse effects to adverse liver effects, to human immune