1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 12 PagelD #: 1137
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1137
`Cas
`
`“sDBDWn&Wwbw
`
`oo
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)Case No.: 22-ev-00252-MSG
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA
`CORPORATION AND GENEVANT_)
`SCIENCES GMBH,
`)
`Plaintiffs,)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR CLASS
`CERTIFICATION
`PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
`
`Vv.
`MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX,
`
`)
`Defendants.)
`
`) )
`
`INC.
`
` )
`EMANUEL MCCRAY,On Behalfof
`Himselfand All Others Similarly Situated, )
`)
`Intervenors-Plaintiffs.)
`)
`ao)
`
`To Plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`and their attorneys of record, to Defendants Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx,Inc. and
`
`their attorneys of record, and to the United States and its attorneys of record,
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat on 2023, at _
`
`in the Courtroom
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1137
`Cas
`
`“sDBDWn&Wwbw
`
`oo
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)Case No.: 22-ev-00252-MSG
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA
`CORPORATION AND GENEVANT_)
`SCIENCES GMBH,
`)
`Plaintiffs,)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR CLASS
`CERTIFICATION
`PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
`
`Vv.
`MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX,
`
`)
`Defendants.)
`
`) )
`
`INC.
`
` )
`EMANUEL MCCRAY,On Behalfof
`Himselfand All Others Similarly Situated, )
`)
`Intervenors-Plaintiffs.)
`)
`ao)
`
`To Plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`and their attorneys of record, to Defendants Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx,Inc. and
`
`their attorneys of record, and to the United States and its attorneys of record,
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat on 2023, at _
`
`in the Courtroom
`
`
`
`Cas 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 12 PagelD #: 1138
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 1138
`
`of the presiding judge in this case in the Federal Courthouse in Fort Worth, Texas,
`
`or as soon thereafter as Plaintiffs-Intervenors may be heard, Plaintiffs-Intervenors
`
`will and do hereby movethe Court for an order certifying this case as a class action
`
`pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
`
`the following class of similarly situated persons:
`
`All persons born or naturalized in the United States whoare citizens of
`the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
`
`This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum oflaw and upon
`
`all other matters of record herein. In accordance with Local Rule 7.1.1, a
`
`conference was not. Thelast action on the Docket occurred on February 22, 2023,
`
`(Doc. 55), granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Nancy Kaye
`
`Horstman.
`
`Dated: February 26, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Emanuel McCray
`
`G
`
`2700 Caples Street
`P.O. Box 3134
`Vancouver, WA 98668
`(564) 208-7576
`emanuel.mccray@hotmail.com
`
`
`
`Casd|1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 12 PagelD #: 1139
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 1139
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS........ ccc cssssssssssscssssssecesssessesssseeseecsecesensasenseesasatenseeseaneeneeneenees i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. 0... cccccsscstssssssenssssssesssssssscsssnssesssaseessessnsssssessessnsensens il
`
`INTRODUCTION 00... eececscesssesescssessecsssosessnsecssseesenssseasscsssscntessnesseensseeaseaasenseeuenaene 1
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE PROPOSED CLASS MEETSRULE23000... ccccccssscsseseeseseeveneeee ]
`
`—
`
`OocoNDBWTF&FWWN
`
`19.||CONCLUSION....ccecssssssscssssssessssssccccsesssssssssesseceusussssssecsessunussssseeeeessnasassseeseensnnnens5
`
`
`
`Cas 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 12 PagelD #: 1140
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 1140
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bondv. U.S.
`564 U.S. 211, 222 (2011) oreeeeeesesseeseesseessesssssseessessnsssnessenseneesreaseaeennes ores 1,5
`
`Califano v. Yamasaki
`442 U.S. 682, 700-701 (1979) vee ecssesssesscccsecesscsecssctevsessessesssesnsveesseeseses ene 1,2
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw.v. Falcon
`457 U.S. 147, 155, 161 (1982) oes cseeccseneesesessesessssssessesesenssssereeteeee oe 2
`
`In re Hydrogen Peroxide AntitrustLitig.
`552 F.3d 305, 309-310 (3d Cir. 2008) oc escsscsscssenscesssrscessenssseseesenee os2,4
`
`Lanner v. Wimmer
`662 F.2d 1349, 1357 (LOth Cir. 1981) oo.ee scssesseecnecnecessrscescesersetseetee fees 5
`
`Leisner v. New York Telephone Co.
`358 F. Supp. 359, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ...eeccescssssssscsccesssseessorsescssctssseseeses fees5
`
`Rice v. City of Philadelphia
`66 F.R.D. 17, 20 (E.D. Pa. 1974) vo escessesecceeseescseeseseeessesrsseessesnsassnee sees2
`
`United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Lord
`585 F.2d 860, 873 (8th Cir. 1978) ....eesscsescsscssscssecsscrsersessesstsssnsnsase eens5
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`Rule 23 .....sscccsssssscsrsescecssesseessevetsessesssessesnessceesscnsecsecesaceasesasensseeteenenseesseses seen nea3
`Rule 23(a) ....cceccccsssssssscesscsscessecesscessesscsessecsacesceaccaccsessncesceessqsceseneessoses enesee eas5
`Rule 23(a)(1) ......cesccsescssssecsccessctsssscnesscsesccssosessosecesseseesesoescsesseesseesesnsren se ree ees3
`Rule 23(a)(3) .....cscsssssscsccsccseccsssessssceccsacsscseseosercessesceectsosesesseseseaseessess se eeeeen3,4
`Rule 23(b)(3) c..cccsssscesssscssssessssssscessessesessensscessesetseseaesusersesenessenscacseearses +Sv eseeaes6
`
`
`
`Casd[1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 12 PagelD #: 1141
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 1141
`
`wm&Wwbh
`moCOSsDH
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`THE PROPOSED CLASS MEETSRULE23.
`
`A.
`
`General.
`
`The proposed Complaint is incorporated herein as if repeated here.
`
`In Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. 211, 222 (2011), the Supreme Court statedthat:
`
`“Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to
`vindicate. The recognition of an injured person’s standing to object to a
`violation of a constitutional principle that allocates power within
`governmentis illustrated, in an analogous context, by cases in which
`individuals sustain discrete, justiciable injury from actionsthat
`transgress separation-of-powers limitations. Separation-of-powers
`principles are intended,in part, to protect each branch of government
`from incursion by the others. Yet the dynamic between and amongthe
`branchesis not the only object of the Constitution’s concern. The
`structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the
`individual as well.”
`
`In Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-701 (1979), the Supreme Court
`
`held that:
`
`“[C]lass relief is appropriate in civil actions brought in federal court,
`including those seeking to overturn determinations of the departments
`of the Executive Branch of the Government in cases where judicial
`review of such determinationsis authorized.... Indeed, a wide variety
`of federal jurisdictional provisions speak in terms of individual
`plaintiffs, but class relief has never been thought to be unavailable
`under them. (Citations omitted.) Where the district court has
`jurisdiction over the claim of each individual memberofthe class, Rule
`23 provides a procedure by which the court may exercise that
`jurisdiction over the various individual claimsin a single proceeding.”
`
`
`
`1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 12 PagelD #: 1142
`Cas
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 1142
`
`A class action may be established if (1) the class is so numerousthat joinder
`
`of all members is impracticable, (2) there are commonquestionsof law orfact
`
`concerningtheclass, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
`
`typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the interests of the class will
`
`be fairly and adequately protected by the representative parties. In re Hydrogen
`
`Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 309-310 (3d Cir. 2008), citing Gen. Tel. Co.
`
`ofSw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155, 161 (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S.
`
`— &W
`
`wWN
`Ooco8NNDHWN
`
`682, 700-01 (1979)).
`
`“Thetrial court, well-positioned to decide which facts and legal arguments
`
`are most important to each Rule 23 requirement, possesses broad discretion to
`
`control proceedings and frame issues for consideration under Rule 23.” Jd. 552 F.3d
`
`at 310.
`
`“Defining a class as consisting of all persons who have been or will be
`
`affected by the conduct charged to the defendants is entirely appropriate where only
`
`injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.” Rice v. City ofPhiladelphia, 66 F.R.D.
`
`17, 20 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
`
`The proposedclass is clear and is defined by whether Modernaand the
`
`United States may constitutionally shift Moderna’s liabilities for its COVID-19
`
`“prototype pathogen”vaccines to the United States in violation of the principles of
`
`federalism and the separation of powers doctrine.
`
`
`
`Cas4j 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 7 of 12 PagelD #: 1143
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 1143
`
`oOocoNJBDwrF&FWWHO—
`fhammammcmmmtDRAF&FWwWHNO—|—&
`
`17
`
`Moreover, the existing parties cannot adequately protect the “powers”
`
`reserved to the People of the United States in the Tenth Amendment withouttheir
`
`assistance.
`
`B.
`
`Numerosity and Impracticality of Joinder
`
`The proposedclass satisfies Rule 23(a)(1) becausethe class size is
`
`approximately 334,000,000 individuals andis “so numerousthat joinderis
`
`impractical.” Thus, the proposedclass plainly satisfies the numerosity requirement
`
`of Rule 23(a).
`
`C.
`
`Common Questions of Law or Fact
`
`All putative class members have the samerights guaranteed under the Federal
`
`Constitution and certain “powers” reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment. A
`
`sole discreet legal question all putative Plaintiffs-Intervenors share in common with
`
`the existing Plaintiffs is may constitutionally shift Moderna’s liabilities forits
`
`COVID-19 “prototype pathogen” vaccines to the United States in violation of the
`
`principles of federalism and the separation of powers doctrine.
`
`D.
`
` Typicality of Claims.
`
`Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims be “typical of the claims... of the
`
`class.” The loss of constitutional sovereignty and powers reserved to the People of
`
`the United States is typical of the putative class. Because McCrayis a citizen of the
`
`United States and is amongthe “people” to whom the Tenth Amendmentreserves
`
`
`
`Casq|1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 8 of 12 PagelD #: 1144
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 1144
`
`aIDnOAFSFWDNHN
`
`oo
`
`“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited byit
`
`to the States”, McCray has Article III standing to pursue declaratory relief under the
`
`typicality requirements of Rule 23 and this Court has already pointed to the
`
`difficulties Moderna and the United States face in their efforts to shift Moderna’s
`
`liabilities to the United States.
`
`Certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which is permissible when the court “finds
`
`that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
`
`questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
`
`other available methodsforfairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”
`
`(Citation omitted.) The twin requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are known as
`
`predominance andsuperiority. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d at
`
`310.
`
`“Predominance ‘tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to
`
`warrant adjudication by representation.... Issues commonto the class must
`
`predominate.... [A] district court must formulate some prediction as to how specific
`
`issues will play out in order to determine whether commonorindividual issues
`
`predominate in a given case....” Id. 552 F.3d at 310-11.
`
`In this case, McCray and the proposed class members’ legal and remedial
`
`theories predominate and are exactly the same. The predominance,superiority and
`
`typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) are therefore satisfied.
`
`
`
`Cas@| 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 9 of 12 PagelD #: 1145
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 1145
`
`“aDOWFSeWYbb
`
`oo
`
`E.
`
`Adequacy of Representation.
`
`The final requirementfor class certification, set out in Rule 23(a)(4), is that
`
`the namedplaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.”
`
`McCrayis a citizen of the United States. The Federal Constitution applies
`
`equally to each citizen of the United States. See Bond, 564 U.S. at 222 (2011):
`
`“Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.... The
`
`structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as
`
`well.” There are no formalor personal conflicts of interests between McCray,the
`
`putative class members, and the single claim for declaratory relief which McCray
`
`seeks to pursue.
`
`Moreover,“[i]t is not ‘fatal if some membersof the class might prefer not to
`
`have violations of their rights remedied.’” Lanner v. Wimmer, 662 F.2d 1349, 1357
`
`(10th Cir. 1981), citing United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Lord,585 F.2d 860,
`
`873 (8th Cir. 1978) (quoting Leisner v. New York Telephone Co.,358 F. Supp. 359,
`
`372 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 1228, 59 L.Ed.2d 462
`
`(1979). Whether McCray will adequately represent the class is a question offact to
`
`be ‘raised and resolved in the trial court in the usual manner.
`
`Il.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this action for declaratory relief should be certified
`
`as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc., Rule 23(a) and (b).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case][1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 10 of 12 PagelD #: 1146
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 1146
`
`Respectfully submitted this 26" day of February
`2023.
`
`CimancalWhe
`Emanuel McCray
`2700 Caples Street
`P.O. Box 3134
`Vancouver, WA 98668
`(564) 208-7576
`emanuel.mccray@hotmail.com
`
`—
`
`-_WwWN
`moOoNNBDNM
`
`
`
`Case[[:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 11 of 12 PagelD #: 1147
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 1147
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`— 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`)Case No.: 22-cv-00252-MSG
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA
`
`11||CORPORATION AND GENEVANT _)
`
`12||SCIENCES GMBH, )
`Plaintiffs)©CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`13
`)
`14
`
`10
`
`V.
`
`))
`
`!5||MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX, _)
`
`
`16||INC. )
`Defendants.)
`)
`17
`)
`18
`EMANUEL MCCRAY,On Behalfof—)
`19||Himselfand All Others Similarly Situated, )
`20
`)
`1
`Intervenors-Plaintiffs.)
`)
`22 ee
`
`I hereby certify that on the 26" day of February 2023, I mailed a copy ofthe
`
`26
`
`27
`
`following documents,
`
`(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`(2) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case|fl:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 12 of 12 PagelD #: 1148
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 60-2 Filed 03/02/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 1148
`
`(3) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION,
`
`with postage prepaid, to all parties addressed as follows:
`
`Attorneysfor the United States
`
`MICHAEL GRANSTON
`GARYL. HAUSKEN
`PHILIP CHARLES STERNHELL
`HAYLEY A. DUNN
`KAVYASRI NAGUMOTU
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`U.S. Departmentof Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20530-0001
`Email: Gary.L.Hausken@usdoj.gov
`Email: Philip.C.Sternhell@usdoj.gov
`Email: Hayley.A.Dunn@usdoj.gov
`Email: Kavyasri.Nagumotu@usdoj.gov
`
`DAVID C. WEISS
`United States Attorney
`1313 North MarketStreet
`PO Box 2046
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneyfor the United States
`
`JOHN W. SHAW
`NATHAN ROGER HOESCHEN
`KAREN ELIZABETH KELLER
`Shaw Keller LLP
`I.M.Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Email: jshaw@shawkeller.com
`Email: nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`Email: kkeller@shawkeller.com
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`
`BRIAN P. EGAN
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel! LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`302-351-9454
`Email: began@mnat.com
`Email: Jbbefiling@mnat.com
`Attorneysfor Defendants
`
`Emanuel McCray
`
`y
`
`—o
`
`O©IFDBvA&WwWWN
`
`
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
