Schatz v. 3M Company

CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedApril 23, 2025
Docket6:25-cv-00029
StatusUnknown

This text of Schatz v. 3M Company (Schatz v. 3M Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schatz v. 3M Company, (D. Mont. 2025).

Opinion

Case MDL No. 2873 Document 3474 _ Filed 04/23/25 Page1of2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2873

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO —248)

On December 7, 2018, the Panel transferred 75 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 357 F.Supp.3d 1391 (J.P.M.L. 2018). Since that time, 1,002 additional action(s) have been transferred to the District of South Carolina. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the District of South Carolina and assigned to Judge Gergel. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the District of South Carolina for the reasons stated in the order of December 7, 2018, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

pending at this time, the FOR THE PANEL: stay is lifted. Apr 23, 2025 Vi Agel Ce oaTeD STATES MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION James Vv. Ingold Clerk of the Panel SEES DSte A TRUE COPY “S, eB ATTEST: ROBIN L. BLUME, CLERK AMR) Stadia S. Shoal, aN ELD) VOR age” DEPUTY CLERK

Case MDL No. 2873 Document 3474 _ Filed 04/23/25 Page 2 of 2

IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2873

SCHEDULE CTO-248 — TAG-ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

ALABAMA NORTHERN ALN 2 2500487 Molitor et al v. 3M Company et al ALN 2 25—-00488 Theall et al v. 3M Company et al MONTANA MT 6 25-00029 Schatz v. 3M Company et al

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Prods. Liab. Litig.
357 F. Supp. 3d 1391 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Schatz v. 3M Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schatz-v-3m-company-mtd-2025.