Varline, Jayden et al v. The 3M Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAYDEN VARLINE, BRIAN RICHARDS,
JONICA RICHARDS, JENSEN RICHARDS,
DANIEL PAUL, ELIZABETH PAUL,
ANNETTE SCHAETZL, TREVOR CUNNINGHAM,
EMILY CUNNINGHAM, RICHARD RUBOW,
MICHAEL HEISE, STACY HEISE,
AMANDA ZASTROW, STEVEN ZASTROW,
SCOTT TOWLE, JESSICA TOWLE,
PERRY REDEKER, RUTH REDEKER,
MATTHEW BRILL, JANET OSTROWSKI,
TOM FELTZ, THOMAS SULESKI,
JERILYN LANDRUM, LANCE KELLY,
JENNIFER KELLY,
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE 3M COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
24-cv-859-jdp
Plaintiffs assert personal injury and property damage claims against defendant The 3M
Company, contending that 3M contaminated their groundwater with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances, commonly known as PFAS. In a previous order, this court dismissed the personal
injury claims for all the plaintiffs who had not alleged a present injury as a result of their
exposure to PFAS, concluding that those plaintiffs had not stated personal injury claims under
Wisconsin law. Dkt. 53, at 8–10. The court’s decision appeared to resolve all claims brought
by plaintiffs Jensen Richards and Jerilyn Landrum, so the court gave Richards and Landrum
two weeks to show cause why they should not be dismissed from the case.
In their response to the show-cause order, Richards and Landrum raise two arguments
why they should not be dismissed. First, they say that they have alleged a present injury,
Case: 3:24-cv-00859-jdp Document #: 55 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
because they alleged “physical effects consistent with PFAS bioaccumulation, and that is an
injury by itself.” Dkt. 54, at 2. This argument is essentially a rehash of plaintiffs’ response to
the motion to dismiss, in which plaintiffs attempted to distinguish Alsteen v. Wauleco, Inc., 2011
WI App 105, 335 Wis. 2d 473, 802 N.W.2d 212, by arguing that the plaintiffs in that case
alleged only exposure to toxic substances, whereas the plaintiffs in this case have alleged
bioaccumulation of PFAS within their bodies. The court rejected that argument in its order on
the motion to dismiss, Dkt. 53, at 10, so it need not revisit the issue here.
Second, Richards and Landrum say that they have suffered present illness due to PFAS
exposure, and they ask for leave to amend the complaint accordingly. For support, Landrum
and Richards point to testimony that they gave during their depositions in this case. Landrum
testified that she has been diagnosed with kidney cysts and is currently being evaluated for
suspected bladder cancer, and Richards said that she suffers from multiple conditions, including
elevated triglycerides, an ovarian cyst, irritable bowel syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux
disease. The court agrees that these allegations appear to be sufficient for Richards and
Landrum to state personal injury claims under Wisconsin law, so it will grant the motion to
amend the complaint. Plaintiffs have until April 6 to file a second amended complaint.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiffs Jerilyn Landrum and Jensen Richards’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint, Dkt. 54, is GRANTED.
Case: 3:24-cv-00859-jdp Document #: 55 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	Plaintiffs have until April 6, 2026, to file a second amended complaint.
Entered March 30, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00859-jdp Document #: 55 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3