Search court records - party Christopher Sorenson, page 19

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 Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Sr. District Judge John A. Ross
Analyze Party
Analyze Firm
- Dysart Law Firm
- Shook, Hardy & Bacon

No. 761 ORDER: Defendants' Buckley Motion (dkt

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

The City’s sole remaining cause of action alleges Defendants intentionally manufactured, distributed, marketed, and promoted PCBs in a manner that created a public nuisance harmful to the health and free use of the LDW and the City’s stormwater and drainage systems.

Opinion 5: The cost to expand existing community programs to reach additional ethnic groups and further reduce public health risk from unsafe fish consumption in the Lower Duwamish is $19 million.

Expert testimony is relevant where “the evidence logically advance[s] a material aspect of the party’s case.” Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 463 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Bacon, 979 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc).

Specifically, Dr. Trapp’s fourth opinion employed the use of: (1) WinSLAMM, a stormwater model (used by the EPA and the United States Geological Survey (“USGS”)) to evaluate runoff volume in urban settings; and (2) a cost-estimating tool in the NCHRP Research Report 992 to estimate the total cost of his opined bioretention basins.9 (See id. at 32, 37.)

(Id.) Here, Dr. Trapp may rely on the City’s provided PCB goal in the way that he cites to it, i.e., that Washington State regulators expect concentrations of PCBs from City-owned outfalls will meet the LDW sediment cleanup objective of 130 ppb.

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 756 ORDER granting Defendants' 585 MOTION for Reconsideration re 581 Order on Motion for Partial ...

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

Motion for ReconsiderationGranted

Having considered the Motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

Defendants argue that they remain entitled to assert those defenses to the extent the City seeks to recover for alleged harm to its proprietary interests.

This Court previously noted that “[i]n this action to restore the purity of its waterways, Seattle acts in its sovereign capacity.” Dkt. # 60 at 9.

However, Defendants contend, and Plaintiff has later conceded, that the City may otherwise seek relief for proprietary harm and that the continuing tort doctrine resolves any statute of limitations issues.

Cite Document

Analyze