Tucker v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. et al (Case consolidated for discovery; all non-dispositive filings to be made in the lead case - 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VANESSA TUCKER, individually and on behalf )
of those similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
) No. 25-2569-KHV
HARCROS CHEMICALS INC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #38) filed January 9, 2026. Having carefully considered the
parties’ positions, the Court finds that the motion should be sustained for substantially the reasons
set forth in Defendant Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Legal Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #39), also filed January 9, 2026, and pages 1 through 5 of
Defendants Elementis Chemical Inc’s and Elementis PLC’s Joint Reply Memorandum in Further
Support of Their Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #47) filed March 5, 2026.
The complaint does not allege that defendant engaged in operations at the facility after
2001, so the Kansas statute of repose, K.S.A. § 60-513(b), bars plaintiff’s claims.
The Court declines to certify to the Kansas Supreme Court under K.S.A. § 60-3201 the
questions whether (1) Kansas recognizes court-supervised medical monitoring relief through a
court-administered monitoring program or fund; (2) if so, whether such relief is a remedy upon
proof of an underlying tort or may be pursued as an independent cause of action (or both); and
(3) what, if any, statutes of limitations and statutes of repose might govern such claims for
relief. The statute of repose is by definition statutory and thus binding on the Court, which does
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 51 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
not need to make an “Erie guess” about how it applies here. The statute of repose provides clear,
controlling precedent. Kansas law on this issue is not necessarily unsettled or unclear, it is simply
contrary to plaintiff’s position.
Certification is a time-consuming and expensive process and this Court has serious
questions whether the Kansas Supreme Court would wade into the three issues which plaintiff
proposes to certify, which are perhaps more properly ones for the Kansas legislature than the
Kansas Supreme Court. Furthermore, failure to certify at this stage would not prevent the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals, to which this ruling is inevitably destined, from taking another look at
whether to certify.
Because this case is headed for appeal and the Tenth Circuit will review de novo the legal
basis for this holding, the motion to dismiss presents no factual issues, the law is well settled and
the Court has other pressing business, it renders this truncated ruling to advance the just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of this action under Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Motion To
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #38) filed January 9, 2026 is SUSTAINED.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 51 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 2