SALISBURY, Md. - A federal judge has denied a motion to fully dismiss or stay a lawsuit against Perdue Farms Inc. over alleged PFAS contamination in Wicomico County, allowing the suit to continue. The judge dismissed two of the four counts originally brought against Perdue, however.
The lawsuit, filed in July of 2025, is the second one brought against Perdue regarding alleged PFAS, or “forever chemical,” contamination near the Salisbury AgriBusiness location. The first is an ongoing class action lawsuit brought against the company filed in October 2024. Plaintiffs in both cases are represented by attorneys at Brockstedt Mandalas Federico.
In the latest suit, two Wicomico County residents who live near Perdue Agribusiness in Salisbury allege the company has continued to dump wastewater contaminated with PFAS at the Salisbury facility, polluting the surrounding groundwater. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue Perdue’s alleged dumping of the contaminated water is in violation of the federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act.
Perdue has maintained in both suits they have been working diligently with the Maryland Department of the Environment to address PFAS in the community and at the agribusiness facility well before the lawsuits were filed. The company has conducted testing at numerous private wells in the area and installed water treatment systems under the oversight of MDE.
MDE is currently conducting an ongoing investigation into PFAS contamination at the facility in Salisbury.
Shortly after the second lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Perdue made a motion to either dismiss the case, strike certain allegations within the suit, or stay the case pending the outcome of MDE’s investigation.
Months later, on Jan. 8, Judge Stephanie Gallagher denied Perdue’s motion to stay the case or dismiss it entirely, according to court documents obtained by WBOC. Two of the four counts against Perdue, one relating to allegations of violating a specific groundwater aspect of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act and the other alleging “imminent and substantial endangerment,” were dismissed on Thursday.
“Plaintiffs did not allege in their complaint that they are currently drinking the contaminated water,” Judge Gallagher writes in her memorandum opinion. “Furthermore, although Plaintiffs allege harm to the surrounding environment as a result of the contamination, this Court has already concluded that they lack standing to bring claims based on that alleged environmental harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim for imminent and substantial endangerment.”
Judge Gallagher went on to deny Perdue’s request to dismiss the other two counts, which deal with violations of open dumping regulations under the RCRA and violations of Maryland statutes by dumping without a discharge permit.
Gallagher also rejected Perdue’s argument that the case should be stayed until MDE had completed their investigation, saying the scope of that investigation remained unclear.
“This Court perceives no persuasive reason to prevent this case from proceeding to discovery while awaiting the completion, at an unknown time in the future, of an investigation that may not ultimately duplicate the relief requested in this case,” Gallagher wrote. The case would continue without a stay, the judge ordered.
Judge Gallagher issued a similar order in the separate class action lawsuit in August.
Both Perdue and Brockstedt Mandalas Federico touted Thursday’s order as a win.
Brockstedt Mandalas Federico issued the following statement:
Today’s ruling is a critical step forward for the Salisbury community in its fight for accountability and justice. Perdue has failed to take accountability, even as the community continues to face this public health crisis. Despite knowing the risks, the company has provided filtration to only half of affected households and continues production while seeking to expand its operations, putting profit over the health and safety of its neighbors.
With this ruling allowing our case under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to move forward, we will work to uncover the full extent of Perdue’s PFAS contamination and pursue every legal avenue to ensure the company is held fully accountable. The people of Salisbury deserve transparency, accountability, and safe drinking water.
Perdue Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Andrea Staub also provided WBOC with a statement on behalf of the company on Thursday:
Rulings on Motions to dismiss are not overly noteworthy. However, today’s ruling is a clear win. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ most extreme claims and narrowed this case substantially. Two of the four counts were dismissed outright, including the claim alleging “imminent and substantial endangerment” and the groundwater contamination claim that attempted to stretch the law beyond its limits.
Just as important, the court recognized that Perdue has been supplying bottled water, installing point-of-entry treatment systems, and that testing shows non-detectable PFAS levels in treated well water—steps Perdue began before this lawsuit was filed. As this case proceeds, it will become clear that plaintiffs’ counsel is attempting to take credit for remediation work Perdue was already undertaking, including installing water filters, removing the AFFF fire-suppression system, and upgrading wastewater treatment at its facility.
The plaintiffs’ effort to turn this case into a broader environmental referendum failed. The court ruled they lack standing to pursue generalized environmental claims.
What remains is a limited legal dispute focused on technical regulatory issues—not a finding of wrongdoing, not a finding of harm, and not an emergency. The case will now proceed on a much narrower track, alongside ongoing oversight by Maryland regulators.
Perdue will continue doing what it has been doing all along: cooperating with regulators, providing clean drinking water, and addressing issues responsibly and transparently.