• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 219-233 of 13,388 results

No. 17097

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17097 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 120 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court ...

Document Grady et al v. Pharmacia LLC et al, 4:23-cv-00226, No. 120 (W.D.Mo. Aug. 1, 2023)
Motion to RemandGranted
Plaintiffs have also sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that removes the word dioxin and disclaims any claims and any damages based on exposure to Agent Orange and its toxic byproduct 2, 3, 7, 8- tetracholorodibenzoparadioxin [ECF No. 87].
Several other district courts have followed similar lines of reasoning, and this Court finds no reason to depart from the rationale behind those numerous rulings finding such claim disclaimers effective.2 See, e.g., O'Shea v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., 2019 WL 12345572, at *4 (D. N.D. Dec. 13, 2019), report and recommendation adopted 2020 WL 9848714 (D. N.D. January 8, 2020) (granting remand after plaintiffs filed express claim waivers specific to the factual allegations that one of the defendants asserts gave rise to a government contractor defense); Kelleher v. A.W.
July 30, 2014) (“When federal question jurisdiction is the only basis for a district court's authority to adjudicate, post-removal developments may cause remand not only to be proper, but even to be required.”); Schuh v. Crane Co., 2014 WL 280361, at *1–2 (E.D.
Case law clearly supports the proposition that a waiver filed after removal may operate to eliminate the bases of federal officer jurisdiction and justifies remand.
It is undisputed that Defendants did not file its notice of removal within thirty days from when this action was initially brought nearly three years ago in state court on September 11, 2020.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 761

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 761 (W.D.Wash. Jul. 19, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 756

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 756 (W.D.Wash. Jul. 13, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 221

Document Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al v. Natco Pharma Ltd. et al, 1:19-cv-02368, No. 221 (D.Del. Dec. 13, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 755

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 755 (W.D.Wash. Jul. 6, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.

Docket 1:16-cv-00431, Delaware District Court (June 13, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding.
Patent

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 750

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 750 (W.D.Wash. Jun. 30, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

InSite Platform Partners, Inc. v. OrbComm, Inc.

Docket 4:16-cv-00491, Missouri Western District Court (May 31, 2016)
Chief District Judge Beth Phillips, presiding.
Contract - Other

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 16859

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 16859 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 16, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 743

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 743 (W.D.Wash. Jun. 15, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

63 Order Other: ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2022-00722, No. 63 Order Other - ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 734

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 734 (W.D.Wash. Jun. 2, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 16746

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 16746 (N.D.Cal. May. 25, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

45 Order Other: ORDER Setting Oral Argument

Document IPR2022-00722, No. 45 Order Other - ORDER Setting Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... >>