`
`BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
` & GROSSMANN LLP
`JONATHAN D. USLANER (Bar No. 256898)
`(jonathanu@blbglaw.com)
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel:
`(310) 819-3470
`Counsel for Plaintiffs City of Grand Rapids
`General Retirement System and City of Grand
`Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`LITIGATION,
`
`MDL No. 2741
`Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`(Civil L.R. 3-12(b) and 7-11)
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741-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
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11257 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, City of Grand Rapids General Retirement
`System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System, plaintiffs in City of Grand
`Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System v.
`Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 3:20-cv-04737-RS (N.D. Cal. filed July 15, 2020) (“Grand
`Rapids”), respectfully move the Court to consider whether Grand Rapids is related to In re
`Roundup Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:16-md-02741-VC (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 4, 2016)
`(“Roundup”).1
`“An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same
`parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly
`burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted
`before different Judges.” Civ. L.R. 3-12(a).
`On October 3, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a
`Transfer Order (ECF No. 1) (the “Transfer Order”) centralizing 19 substantially similar cases for
`coordinated pretrial proceedings in this Court before the Honorable Vince Chhabria (MDL No.
`2741). Those actions allege that Roundup, a widely used weed killer manufactured by Monsanto
`Company (“Monsanto”), can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Transfer Order states that
`“These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto’s
`Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin’s
`lymphoma.” Transfer Order at 2. Since the Transfer Order, thousands of additional cases have
`been transferred to this Court and assigned to Judge Chhabria.
`Prior to the issuance of the Transfer Order, on May 23, 2016, Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
`(“Bayer”), a corporate defendant in Grand Rapids, announced that it had made an unsolicited all-
`cash offer to acquire Monsanto (the “Acquisition”). The Acquisition was ultimately completed on
`June 7, 2018. As a result of the Acquisition, Monsanto became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`Bayer. Grand Rapids alleges that, from May 23, 2016 to March 19, 2019, Bayer and certain of its
`
`1 Counsel for City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police
`& Fire Retirement System was unable to confer with counsel for Defendants as Defendants’
`counsel has yet to appear before the Court.
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`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 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11257 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`current and former senior executives misrepresented the risk of liability from lawsuits brought
`against Monsanto alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(1), Grand Rapids should be designated as related to
`Roundup because both of these actions assert claims against substantially similar defendants—
`namely, Bayer, by virtue of its acquisition of Monsanto—and the allegations in Roundup address
`misconduct that is integral to the claims asserted in Grand Rapids. Consequently, the requirement
`of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(1) is satisfied.
`In addition, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(2), relation of these actions is appropriate
`because, given the substantially similar parties and events at issue in the actions, it appears likely
`that there would be unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expenses if the cases were
`conducted before different judges. For example, the actions will involve substantially similar
`witnesses and will involve overlapping discovery. Relating Grand Rapids and Roundup will serve
`the interests of judicial economy, consistent with Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(2).
`Moreover, securities fraud class action cases are routinely centralized with consumer class
`actions and other cases not subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 where,
`as here, those actions share core facts. See, e.g., In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales
`Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 148 F. Supp. 3d 1367, 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (centralizing
`consumer and securities actions in this District); Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff, Approving
`Selection of Lead Counsel, and Addressing Case Management, In re Equifax Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
`1:17-cv-03463-TWT (N.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2018), ECF No. 32 (same); In re CenturyLink Residential
`Customer Billing Disputes Litig., MDL No. 2795, 2017 WL 4414232, at *1-2 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 5,
`2017) (same); In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg., Sales
`Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1382, 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (same); In re:
`Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency Litig., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1361 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (same); In
`re: Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Foreign Exch. Transactions Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1371,
`1372-73 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (centralizing securities, consumer, ERISA, and derivative actions); In re
`MF Glob. Holdings Ltd. Inv. Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (transferring
`consumer actions to the same forum as securities litigation and holding, “all actions arise from the
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`2
`
`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 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11257 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`common factual backdrop of the demise of MF Global Holdings . . . . Where actions share factual
`questions, the Panel has long held that the presence of disparate legal theories is no reason to deny
`transfer.”)2
`Accordingly, a finding that Grand Rapids is related to Roundup is appropriate under Civil
`Local Rule 3-12(a).
`
`DATED: July 16, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
`& GROSSMANN LLP
`
`/s/ Jonathan D. Uslaner
`JONATHAN D. USLANER (Bar No. 256898)
`(jonathanu@blbglaw.com)
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel:
`(310) 819-3470
`-and-
`
`HANNAH ROSS*
`(hannah@blbglaw.com)
`AVI JOSEFSON*
`(avi@blbglaw.com)
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel:
`(212) 554-1400
`Fax:
`(212) 554-1444
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs City of Grand Rapids
`General Retirement System and City of Grand
`Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System
`* Pro hac vice forthcoming
`
`2 See also In re: State St. Bank & Tr. Co. Fixed Income Funds Inv. Litig., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1388,
`1389 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (centralizing consumer and ERISA cases); In re Unumprovident Corp.
`Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379-80 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (centralizing
`securities, derivative and ERISA cases).
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`3
`
`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
`
`