throbber
Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11257 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket