In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority In Support of Motion to Remand

N.D. Cal.Feb 11, 2019

MONSANTO’S RESPONSE TO PLS.’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 3:16-md-02741-VC & 3:18-cv-01960-VC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice) (bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com) Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice) (rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com) 2001 M St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-847-4030 Fax: 202-847-4005 HOLLINGSWORTH LLP Eric G. Lasker (pro hac vice) (elasker@hollingsworthllp.com) 1350 I St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-898-5843 Fax: 202-682-1639 Attorneys for Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER Pamela Yates (CA Bar No. 137440) (Pamela.Yates@arnoldporter.com) 777 South Figueroa St., 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-243-4178 Fax: 213-243-4199 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice) (mimbroscio@cov.com) One City Center 850 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-662-6000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to: Brenda Acosta, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-01960-VC Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC MDL No. 2741 MONSANTO COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiffs recently filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion to Remand (“Plaintiffs’ Notice”) (ECF No. 2674), but they never filed a remand motion, so controlling Ninth Circuit law establishes that they waived their remand argument by failing to file a remand motion within thirty days of Monsanto Company’s March 2018 removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that sua sponte remand absent a timely remand motion was erroneous because “the forum defendant rule embodied in [28 U.S.C.] § 1441(b) is a procedural requirement, and thus a violation of this rule constitutes a waivable non-jurisdictional defect subject to the 30-day time limit [for filing remand motions] imposed by § 1447(c)”); Hill v. Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 2678 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 3 2 MONSANTO’S RESPONSE TO PLS.’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 3:16-md-02741-VC & 3:18-cv-01960-VC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hill-Love, 509 F. App’x 605, 605 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (relying on Lively and stating that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a non-jurisdictional, waivable defect); Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (same); In re Garabed Melkonian Trust, 235 F. App’x 404, 406 (9th Cir. 2007) (same); see also Corona-Contreras v. Gruel, 857 F.3d 1025, 1028-30 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that case could not be remanded based on a non-jurisdictional, procedural defect in the removal process because no remand motion had been filed); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044-46 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). Here, Plaintiffs’ Notice relies on this Court’s recent ruling granting a timely remand motion in the Klock case (Pretrial Order No. 69). The § 1441(b) forum defendant rule was the basis for the Klock remand motion and this Court’s ruling. Based on the well-settled Ninth Circuit precedent cited above, plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely remand motion, see Docket Sheet (attached as Exhibit 1), as required by § 1447(c) precludes remand based on the forum defendant rule. Therefore, the Court should reject plaintiffs’ remand request. 1 DATED: February 11, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric G. Lasker___________ Eric G. Lasker (pro hac vice) (elasker@hollingsworthllp.com) HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-898-5843 Fax: 202-682-1639 Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice) (bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com) Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice) (rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com) WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP 2001 M St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-847-4030 Fax: 202-847-4005 1 Plaintiffs’ Notice was filed in the MDL-wide docket but not in the Acosta-specific docket. Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 2678 Filed 02/11/19 Page 2 of 3 3 MONSANTO’S RESPONSE TO PLS.’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 3:16-md-02741-VC & 3:18-cv-01960-VC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pamela Yates (CA Bar No. 137440) (Pamela.Yates@arnoldporter.com) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER 777 South Figueroa St., 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-243-4178 Fax: 213-243-4199 Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice) (mimbroscio@cov.com) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-662-6000 Attorneys for Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 2678 Filed 02/11/19 Page 3 of 3