Mueller Water Products, Inc. is currently the plaintiff in an active federal contract case against Johnson Controls International plc over decades-old environmental cleanup obligations, and it is a defendant in an ongoing employment suit in Illinois. A patent licensing dispute with SIPCO ended in a split ruling from a Georgia appeals court in March 2025, and an earlier securities class action tied to defective smart meters was dismissed with prejudice in June 2020. The current Mueller Water Products lawsuit landscape, together with the closed matters, is laid out below.
The Johnson Controls Environmental Contract Case
On April 17, 2026, Mueller filed a declaratory judgment action against Johnson Controls International plc in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.1CourtListener. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc The case is docketed as No. 1:26-cv-03159 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. Rather than seek damages, Mueller is asking the court to interpret a contract and declare which party is responsible for ongoing environmental remediation costs.
What the Dispute Is About
The disagreement traces to a 1999 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement — the “1999 SAPA” — under which Tyco International sold The Mueller Co. and Grinnell Supply Sales to an investor group led by DLJ Merchant Banking Partners II.2Supply House Times. Tyco International Sells Mueller, Grinnell That agreement allocated responsibility for environmental cleanup obligations connected to Mueller’s former operations. Johnson Controls became the successor to Tyco’s obligations after the two companies merged in 2016. Mueller’s complaint attaches the 1999 SAPA, an EPD Consent Order, and an Environmental Covenant, all bearing on who now bears the remediation costs.1CourtListener. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc
Where the Case Stands
Johnson Controls was served on May 20, 2026, and its answer is due July 20, 2026.3PACER Monitor. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc The initial pretrial conference, first set for June 12, was moved to September 11, 2026, after Johnson Controls requested more time.4Justia. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc, Order
Johnson Controls briefly floated a conflict-of-interest concern about Mueller’s outside counsel, who had been admitted pro hac vice. Judge Castel signaled skepticism, writing that revoking pro hac vice status “is not likely to be the proper means to raise a disqualifying conflict of interest,” and set a June 17, 2026 deadline for any pre-motion letter.3PACER Monitor. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc Johnson Controls dropped the issue in a June 4 letter, stating that “based on the additional information obtained to date, JCI does not intend to move for reconsideration of the pro hac vice motions or for disqualification.”4Justia. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Johnson Controls International plc, Order
Securities Class Action Over Smart Meter Defects (Dismissed)
Before the Johnson Controls case, shareholders sued Mueller and four executives in Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al., No. 19-cv-3260 (S.D.N.Y.), alleging the company hid widespread defects in its Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) products and underreported the warranty costs. The court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 11, 2020, ending the litigation.5Justia. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al.
The Alleged Product Failures
The complaint described failures across several utilities. About 97,000 Mueller systems at Missouri American Water Company showed high failure rates blamed on a defective magnetic design that caused meters to record no usage or low readings; the utility pulled nearly 24,000 meters between August and December 2015.6U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al., 19-cv-3260 In Chillicothe, Missouri, AMI meter failure rates rose from 22% in 2015 to 89% by 2019, caused by moisture in the nodes and battery issues.5Justia. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al. In the San Diego area, a gear glitch in registers made from 2011 to 2013 blocked wireless transmission, so that only about 15,000 of 90,000 installed meters at one utility were sending signals by 2018; officials at the Padre Dam Municipal Water District in Santee called the meters “bad product.” Mueller later disclosed a “podding issue” in “Version 3” radios made from 2011 to 2014, in which the protective encapsulant broke down in humid, warm conditions, causing premature radio failure or early battery drain before the ten-year warranty period.
The Stock Drops and Executives Named
Lead plaintiffs Andrea Peterson and Kevin Kelly represented a proposed class of investors who bought Mueller common stock between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018.6U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al., 19-cv-3260 The individual defendants were former CEO Gregory E. Hyland, CEO J. Scott Hall, former CFO Evan L. Hart, and CFO Marietta Edmunds Zakas. Two disclosures drove the alleged losses. In April 2017, Mueller announced a $9.8 million warranty charge tied to the Version 3 radio defects, and the stock fell more than 11% to close at $11.25.7AccessNewswire. Shareholder Alert: Mueller Water Products, Inc. (MWA) Sued for Misleading Shareholders In August 2018, an additional $14.1 million warranty charge sent shares down another 6% to $11.58. After the first charge, CFO Hart said the company expected a “normal warranty charge provision” going forward with nothing of that magnitude anticipated, a statement plaintiffs called misleading in light of the second charge sixteen months later.5Justia. Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al. The dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be refiled.
Mueller Systems v. SIPCO Patent Licensing Ruling
SIPCO, LLC sued Mueller subsidiary Mueller Systems LLC in Georgia over a 2011 patent lease agreement covering communication modules used in water meters. SIPCO alleged Mueller failed to meet reporting and self-audit obligations. Mueller sought to recover $105,000 in royalties as a credit following a $10 million settlement it had reached with Siemens Industries over product defects in a Jackson, Mississippi project.8FindLaw. Mueller Systems, LLC v. SIPCO, LLC
On March 10, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals split the decision. It reversed the lower court’s ruling against Mueller on the reporting-obligations claim, finding Mueller had shown sufficient evidence of compliance. It affirmed that Mueller had breached the self-audit requirements. It rejected Mueller’s counterclaim for royalty recovery, noting that Mueller’s parent had classified the Siemens payment as an operating expense in its public filings rather than a credit for returned or defective goods. The court also narrowed SIPCO’s audit rights to sales invoices for licensed products.8FindLaw. Mueller Systems, LLC v. SIPCO, LLC
Wells v. Mueller Water Products Employment Case
Jonathon Wells’s employment suit is pending in the Central District of Illinois. On April 9, 2026, District Judge Jonathan E. Hawley partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. All four counts against Mueller Water Products, Inc. survived, while two counts against subsidiary Mueller Co. LLC were dismissed without prejudice.9PACER Monitor. Wells v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al., Order on Motion to Dismiss Wells filed an amended complaint in May 2026, and a scheduling conference was set for July 2026.10PACER Monitor. Wells v. Mueller Water Products, Inc. et al. The file does not describe the underlying employment claims.