`
`BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
`JUDICIAL PANEL ON
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`MDL NO. ___________
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`IN RE: PARAQUAT
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`LITIGATION
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED
`OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
`
`Movant Paul Rakoczy, Plaintiff in a civil action pending in the United States District Court
`
`
`
`for the Northern District of California before the Honorable Edward M. Chen,1 moves this Panel
`
`for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 transferring the actions identified in the attached
`
`Schedule of Actions to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
`
`proceedings, and would respectfully show as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This litigation involves the herbicide paraquat, which has been shown to cause
`
`Parkinson’s Disease. Movant and plaintiffs listed in the Schedule of Actions have suffered the
`
`same injury (Parkinson’s Disease) as a result of exposure to the same toxin (paraquat) and bring
`
`the same or substantially similar personal injury causes of action against the same defendants—
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection L.L.C., and Syngenta AG.
`
`2.
`
`Movant proposes transfer to the Honorable Edward M. Chen of the Northern
`
`District of California for three reasons. First, Judge Chen has previously shown his ability to
`
`successfully resolve multidistrict litigation and repeatedly has been recognized by the Panel as an
`
`accomplished jurist skilled at steering multidistrict litigation. Second, Judge Chen currently
`
`presides over the lowest-numbered paraquat-related personal injury case out of the five such cases
`
`filed in the Northern District of California. Third, Chevron U.S.A. has its principal place of
`
`
`1 Rakoczy v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, et al., No. 4:21-cv-02083-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case MDL No. 3004 Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`business in the Northern District of California where Judge Chen sits.
`
`3.
`
`As indicated in the Schedule of Actions, there are currently fourteen related cases
`
`pending in six different federal courts across the country. Transferring these actions to a single
`
`court will not only conserve judicial and party resources, but will also avoid the risk of inconsistent
`
`pretrial rulings given the number of courts and the complicated common legal and factual issues
`
`involved in the cases.
`
`
`
`Movant therefore respectfully requests, for these reasons and the ones more fully
`
`articulated in the memorandum of authorities filed herewith, that the Panel transfer the cases listed
`
`on the attached Schedule of Actions, and any subsequently filed related actions, to Judge Edward
`
`Chen of the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ S. Ann Saucer
`S. Ann Saucer
`asaucer@fnlawfirm.com
`N. Majed Nachawati (TX SBN: 24038319)
`mn@fnlawfirm.com
`Patrick A. Luff (TX SBN: 24092728)
`pluff@fnlawfirm.com
`FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
`5473 Blair Road
`
`Dallas, Texas 75231
`
`Telephone: (214) 890-0711
`Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
`
`Fears Nachawati, PLLC is counsel of record for
`Movant Paul Rakoczy and Plaintiffs Gerald Gray,
`Michael and Jean Kearns, Todd Tenneson, and
`Kenneth Turner
`
`2
`
`
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
