Ohio Court Denies Motion to Strike Collateral Estoppel Argument in PFAS Insurance Coverage Dispute

CLEVELAND –– An Ohio court has denied a motion to strike collateral estoppel arguments in a jurisdiction dispute in a PFAS exposure declaratory judgment action, concluding that challenges to a motion to remand should be filed in an opposition brief, not a motion to strike.

In the Aug. 9 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found that the plaintiff’s collateral estoppel arguments were related to the matter being resolved by the court in terms of jurisdiction and remand. For more on the court’s decision with regard to jurisdiction, see the related story in this issue.