Federal Court Appoints Michael Bliven as Interim Class Counsel in Nationwide PFAS Firefighter Turnout Gear Case

On May 28, 2026, Chief District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued two significant orders in City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, et al. v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. CV-25-36-BU-BMM.

The first order formally appointed Michael Bliven of Bliven Law Firm, P.C. as co-liaison counsel and part of interim class counsel in a nationwide class action against 3M, DuPont de Nemours, The Chemours Company, Corteva, and others. The second order denied defense motions for both a stay of proceedings and sanctions against the plaintiffs’ legal team.

Members of the legal team in Butte, Montana.

These two orders mark the most significant procedural milestone in the case to date. For firefighters and municipalities across five states who have been harmed by PFAS-contaminated turnout gear, the appointments signal that this litigation is organized, staffed, and moving forward with the court’s full confidence behind it.

Both court orders are available as primary source documents: Order Appointing Interim Class Counsel and Order Denying Motion for Stay and Sanctions. For background on how this case began, see our earlier post: Montana Judge Allows PFAS Firefighter Gear Lawsuit to Move Forward Against Industry Giants.

If you or your fire department have been affected by PFAS in firefighter turnout gear, contact Bliven Law Firm, P.C. for a free consultation.

Members of the legal team in Butte, Montana.

What the Appointment Order Actually Says

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), a court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action. On May 28, 2026, Judge Morris granted that designation here.

The court appointed the following as Interim Co-Lead Counsel: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kyle McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., and Ian W. Sloss and Jennifer Sclar of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP. John Heenan of Heenan & Cook, PLLC and Michael Bliven of Bliven Law Firm, P.C. were appointed as Liaison Counsel.

To reach that decision, the court applied the Rule 23(g)(1) factors: the work done identifying and investigating claims, counsel’s experience in class actions and complex litigation, counsel’s knowledge of applicable law, and the resources committed to representing the class.

The court concluded that the proposed counsel “have contributed significant hours and resources to identify and investigate potential claims and litigate the early proceedings in Montana and Connecticut” and “possess sufficient experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in this action.”

The court also found the Montana case to be “by far the most procedurally advanced” of the related actions pending across the country, and that “the size and scope of Plaintiffs’ claims here, involving purchasers in five states, are orders of magnitude larger than the claims of the plaintiffs” in competing cases in Minnesota and California. That advantage directly supported the appointment.

What Interim Class Counsel Are Responsible For

The order defines the specific responsibilities assigned to interim class counsel:

1. Coordinating the work of preparing and presenting the proposed class’s claims.
2. Determining and presenting the positions of the proposed class during this litigation.
3. Acting as spokespersons for all communications between defendants and the proposed class.
4. Initiating and entering settlement discussions and negotiations.
5. Conducting discovery and otherwise litigating this matter to resolution.

Interim class counsel now has formal authority to drive discovery, coordinate the class certification motion, and open settlement talks with 3M, DuPont de Nemours, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva, Globe Manufacturing Company, W.L. Gore & Associates, Lion Group, FireDex LLP, Morning Pride Manufacturing, and Innotex Corp. The court has placed that authority directly in the hands of the team that filed this case and has prosecuted it since day one.

How a Case This Large Gets Here: The Plaintiff Geography

When Bliven Law Firm and co-counsel filed the original complaint on April 3, 2025, the named plaintiff was the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, Montana. By the time the appointment motion was filed on April 21, 2026, the case had grown to include plaintiffs from five states:

• City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, Montana
• City of Santa Monica, California
• City of Stamford, Connecticut
• Old Mystic Fire District, Connecticut
• Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland
• Charles County, Maryland
• City of St. Louis, Missouri

Related actions are also pending in Minnesota and California, and additional municipalities with similar claims have joined the Montana litigation. The court found that the Montana case’s scale and procedural pace justified designating it as the lead action.

Related cases in Connecticut that had originally been filed first, including a firefighter union action originally brought by Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association v. 3M Co., were either voluntarily dismissed or consolidated into the Montana docket.

For fire departments and municipalities outside Montana that have been paying out of pocket to replace PFAS-contaminated gear, that consolidation is relevant. One of the strongest class actions on this issue in the country is being led, in part, from a law firm in Kalispell, Montana.

What the Stay and Sanctions Denial Means

Globe Manufacturing, Lion Group, and W.L. Gore & Associates filed a motion for fees, costs, and a stay of proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) on April 10, 2026. Then on May 7, 2026, 3M, DuPont de Nemours, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Corteva, and Lion filed a separate motion for sanctions.

Both motions targeted the Connecticut purchaser plaintiffs – the City of Stamford and Old Mystic Fire District – over their decision to voluntarily dismiss their Connecticut claims and refile in Montana.

The defendants’ core argument was that this move constituted forum-shopping, vexatious litigation, and abuse of the judicial process – claims serious enough that, if sustained, could have halted the case and shifted attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs’ side.

Judge Morris was not persuaded. On the sanctions motion, the court applied the governing standard from Fink v. Gomez, which requires a specific finding that a party acted in “bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.”

The court found that the Connecticut plaintiffs’ decision to consolidate into Montana was driven by efficiency and that the circumstances had materially changed since they first filed in Connecticut. The court wrote: “The Court remains unpersuaded that Connecticut Purchaser Plaintiffs’ conduct in this matter represents an abuse of the judicial system.”

On the Rule 41(d) stay motion, the court similarly declined, finding that consolidation “likely will financially benefit the parties in the long-term.” Both motions were denied in full. The case moves forward without a stay, without a sanctions award, and with interim class counsel formally in place. This ruling was also covered by Law360. 

Firefighters and municipalities in Montana, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, and California are all represented in this litigation. Contact Bliven Law Firm, P.C. to discuss whether your situation qualifies.

Why This Matters for Firefighters and Fire Departments

A federal court appointment under Rule 23(g)(3) is not ceremonial. It means the court evaluated the work done, the experience of the lawyers involved, and their knowledge of the law, and formally concluded that this team is qualified to lead a class that spans multiple states and potentially involves billions of dollars in replacement costs and health damages.

The underlying allegations have not changed. The defendants – including 3M and DuPont/Chemours – allegedly sold turnout gear containing PFAS to fire departments for decades while concealing the known health risks.

The court previously found that Butte-Silver Bow “sufficiently alleged” civil RICO violations, stating that “Defendants could not have achieved their goals of selling PFAS and turnout gear containing PFAS if defendants’ knowledge of the harms of PFAS had been exposed.”

PFAS chemicals in turnout gear have been linked to testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, ulcerative colitis, and other serious conditions. The International Association of Fire Fighters has reported that occupational cancer caused 65 percent of line-of-duty deaths among career firefighters between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2021.

Firefighters carry a 9 percent higher risk of developing cancer than the general population and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer, according to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network. With interim class counsel now in place, the litigation moves into the discovery phase – where the legal team has authority to compel production of internal documents that could show what these companies knew, and when.

Montana as the Lead Forum: What That Signals

Related cases were filed earlier in Connecticut. A firefighter union action remains there. Cases are also pending in Minnesota and California. Despite all of that, the court found that the Montana action is “by far the most procedurally advanced” of the related cases nationwide – a finding that reflects the pace and quality of the work done by this legal team from the outset.

The Montana case moved through the first round of motions to dismiss faster than the Connecticut action, drew in plaintiffs from five states, and prompted the court to formally consolidate the purchaser plaintiff claims in Butte. A Kalispell-based law firm is now co-liaison counsel in what has become one of the more significant municipal PFAS class actions in the country.

For fire departments and municipalities that have not yet joined the litigation, the appointment order creates a clearer path to participation. Interim class counsel is now authorized to communicate with potential class members, coordinate claims, and move toward certification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean that Michael Bliven was appointed as interim class counsel?

It means Chief District Judge Brian Morris formally found that Michael Bliven and the other appointed lawyers have the experience, resources, and knowledge of the applicable law to lead this class action on behalf of the putative class. Interim class counsel are now authorized to coordinate claims, conduct discovery, and enter settlement negotiations with the defendants. The appointment does not guarantee a particular outcome, but it gives the legal team formal authority to drive the case forward.

What were the defense motions for a stay and sanctions about?

Globe, Lion, and Gore sought a stay of proceedings and fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), arguing that the Connecticut plaintiffs had engaged in forum-shopping by dismissing their Connecticut claims and refiling in Montana. Separately, 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, and Lion sought sanctions for the same conduct. Chief District Judge Morris denied both motions on May 28, 2026, finding no evidence of bad faith, abuse of the judicial process, or the kind of conduct that would justify sanctions under court precedent.

Can my fire department or municipality still join this lawsuit?

Potentially, yes. The case is still in pre-certification proceedings, and interim class counsel is now authorized to coordinate the class and conduct discovery. Fire departments and municipalities that purchased PFAS-containing turnout gear and paid for replacements may have grounds to participate. Contact Bliven Law Firm, P.C. directly to discuss the specifics of your situation.

What cancers and illnesses have been linked to PFAS in firefighter turnout gear?

PFAS exposure from turnout gear has been linked to testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and other serious conditions. The Firefighter Cancer Support Network reports that occupational cancer now accounts for 65 percent of line-of-duty firefighter deaths. This litigation specifically targets the manufacturers and distributors who allegedly sold PFAS-containing gear while concealing those risks.

Where can I read the actual court orders?

Both orders from May 28, 2026 are available here: Order Appointing Interim Class Counsel and Order Denying Motion for Stay and Sanctions. Both are signed by Chief District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

Bliven Law Firm, P.C.: Your Montana PFAS and Class Action Law Firm

If you’re a firefighter who has been diagnosed with cancer or another illness linked to PFAS exposure, or a fire department or municipality that has spent money replacing contaminated turnout gear, these court orders are directly relevant to your situation. The case is moving. Interim class counsel is in place. Discovery is ahead.

Michael Bliven has been involved in this litigation since before the original complaint was filed on April 3, 2025. His appointment as co-liaison counsel reflects the court’s finding that the work done here meets the standard required to lead a class that now spans five states. The legal process to hold 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and the other defendants accountable is underway, and it’s being led in part from Kalispell, Montana.

For more background on the PFAS firefighter turnout gear issue, visit our Montana Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawyer page. To discuss your specific situation, contact our firm today for a free consultation.