Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:6404
`
`Rachel E. Morowitz SBN (326385)
`rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
`Amy Williams-Derry
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384
`
`Attorneys for Initial Settlement Class Member
`City of Seattle
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CITY OF LONG BEACH a municipal
`No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`corporation; COUNTY OF LOS
`RESPONSE, MOTION, AND/OR
`ANGELES, a political subdivision; CITY
`OBJECTION OF INITIAL
`OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
`SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER
`corporation; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a
`CITY OF SEATTLE TO RE-NOTE
`municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`JOSE, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
`HEARING DATE, OR FOR RELIEF
`OAKLAND, a municipal corporation;
`FROM DEADLINE TO OBJECT, AND
`CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal
`TO APPEAR AND PRESENT
`corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a
`ARGUMENT AT PRELIMINARY
`municipal corporation; CITY OF
`APPROVAL HEARING
`TACOMA, a municipal corporation;
`CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
`corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a
`port district of the State of Oregon;
`BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
`subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY
`COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`July 23, 2020
`Date:
`10:00 am
`Time:
`Judge: Fernando M. Olguin
`Crtrm: 6D
`
`Action Filed: May 19, 2016
`Trial Date:
`May 11, 2021
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`Rachel E. Morowitz SBN (326385)
`rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
`Amy Williams-Derry
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384
`
`Attorneys for Initial Settlement Class Member
`City of Seattle
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CITY OF LONG BEACH a municipal
`No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`corporation; COUNTY OF LOS
`RESPONSE, MOTION, AND/OR
`ANGELES, a political subdivision; CITY
`OBJECTION OF INITIAL
`OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal
`SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER
`corporation; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a
`CITY OF SEATTLE TO RE-NOTE
`municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`JOSE, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
`HEARING DATE, OR FOR RELIEF
`OAKLAND, a municipal corporation;
`FROM DEADLINE TO OBJECT, AND
`CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal
`TO APPEAR AND PRESENT
`corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a
`ARGUMENT AT PRELIMINARY
`municipal corporation; CITY OF
`APPROVAL HEARING
`TACOMA, a municipal corporation;
`CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
`corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a
`port district of the State of Oregon;
`BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
`subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY
`COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`July 23, 2020
`Date:
`10:00 am
`Time:
`Judge: Fernando M. Olguin
`Crtrm: 6D
`
`Action Filed: May 19, 2016
`Trial Date:
`May 11, 2021
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:6405
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY SOLUTIA
`INC., and PHARMACIA LLC, and
`DOES 1 through 100,
`
`Defendants.
`
`The City of Seattle (“Seattle”) submits this response to Plaintiffs’ June 24 Motion
`
`and Memorandum in Support of Certification of Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval
`
`of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Notice Plan, Appointment of Class Action
`
`Settlement Administrator, and Appointment of Class Counsel (the “Motion”), Dkt. # 191-
`
`1, to request: (1) that the Court re-note Plaintiffs’ July 23, 2020 hearing by two weeks,
`
`until August 6, 2020, or alternatively, (2) that the Court extend the deadline for responses
`
`and objections to Plaintiff’s Motion by two weeks, until July 16, 2020, to give Seattle
`
`time to address with the parties two terms in the Class Action Settlement Agreement
`
`(Dkt. # 191-2) that could affect Seattle’s litigation rights. If Seattle is unable to resolve
`
`its concerns regarding the Settlement Agreement language with the parties prior to the
`
`preliminary approval hearing, Seattle also requests permission to appear at that hearing
`
`and be heard to request clarification of two Settlement terms, namely the extent of the
`
`released claims and Paragraph 106.1 See id., Dkt. # 191-2 at ¶¶ 41, 46, 106.
`
`1 Notwithstanding the narrow issue described herein, Seattle reserves all of its rights with
`respect to the Settlement Agreement, and does not waive any other argument it may
`later discover or seek to raise.
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`RESPONSE OF INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE FOR RELIEF FROM
`DEADLINE AND TO PRESENT AT HEARING
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:6406
`
`Seattle has been litigating significant PCB-related nuisance and negligence claims
`
`against the Monsanto Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western
`
`District of Washington since 2016. Seattle now finds itself in the unusual position of
`
`being forced to make a decision about whether and how to participate in a Settlement that
`
`it did not negotiate and that would eliminate in one blow the hundreds of millions of
`
`dollars it seeks from Monsanto in its own hard-fought litigation in the Western District of
`
`Washington.
`
`Although it has not formally received notice of the Settlement at issue here, Seattle
`
`is an “Initial Settlement Class Member” in the action, see Ex. A to the Mot. (Dkt. # 191-
`
`2). As a member of the proposed settlement class, Seattle has standing to object to,
`
`exclude itself from, or otherwise inquire about the contemplated settlement and its
`
`proposed effects. See generally id., Dkt. # 191-2. Seattle seeks clarification of two
`
`ambiguous Settlement terms before notice issues to class members, many of whom will
`
`likely have the same concerns about the terms’ interpretation. Moreover, any clarification
`
`regarding the Settlement terms will need to be in writing and filed in the Court docket,
`
`prior to the issuance of notice, to be accessible to all class members.
`
`The requested extension would allow Seattle time to confer with the parties about
`
`the meaning and import of the vague Settlement terms, and determine whether its
`
`concerns may be resolved consensually, or will ultimately require the intervention of this
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`RESPONSE OF INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE FOR RELIEF FROM
`DEADLINE AND TO PRESENT AT HEARING
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:6407
`
`Court.2 Seattle has already begun the process of conferring with counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`about the vague Settlement terms, and has similarly reached out to Monsanto’s counsel.
`
`Based on its conversation with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Seattle is hopeful that once it has a
`
`chance to confer with Monsanto the issues can be resolved, eliminating Seattle’s need to
`
`engage in any further briefing before this Court. Accordingly, the brief extension Seattle
`
`requests may be the only relief the Court needs to provide to fully address this issue.
`
`Seattle is aware that the notice period contemplated by the Settlement allows for
`
`objections or exclusions to be filed after preliminary approval, if this Court preliminarily
`
`approves the Settlement. However, this sequencing is inadequate, as noted above,
`
`because the vague terms will affect all class members, and any resolution will need to be
`
`publicly documented. It will be most efficient to resolve the issue before class notice
`
`issues. Seattle’s concerns are ripe now.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Seattle respectfully requests that the Court grant a brief
`
`set-over of the July 23 hearing, by moving it to August 6, 2020 (or a later date that is
`
`convenient for the Court). Alternatively, Seattle requests that the Court extend the
`
`deadline for any response to Plaintiffs’ Motion from July 2 to July 16, 2020. Finally, if
`
`Seattle is unable to resolve its concerns with the parties prior to the preliminary approval
`
`2 On July 1, 2020, counsel for Seattle conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs to see if
`Plaintiffs would agree to Seattle’s request to re-note the hearing for a later date. Counsel
`for Plaintiffs would not agree, necessitating this filing.
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`RESPONSE OF INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE FOR RELIEF FROM
`DEADLINE AND TO PRESENT AT HEARING
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:6408
`
`hearing (on whatever date it is held), Seattle seeks permission to appear and be heard at
`
`the preliminary approval hearing to request clarification of the above-noted Settlement
`
`terms.
`
`A proposed order is submitted herewith.
`
`DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020.
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`
`By s/ Rachel E. Morowitz
`Rachel Morowitz (SBN 326385)
`rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
`Amy Williams-Derry
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384
`
`Attorneys for Initial Settlement Class
`Member City of Seattle
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`RESPONSE OF INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE FOR RELIEF FROM
`DEADLINE AND TO PRESENT AT HEARING
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 197 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:6409
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on 2nd day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
`
`Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all
`
`known counsel of record.
`
`By: s/ Rachel E. Morowitz
`Rachel Morowitz
`
`4813-6347-4369, v. 2
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`RESPONSE OF INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE FOR RELIEF FROM
`DEADLINE AND TO PRESENT AT HEARING
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
