Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07189/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07189-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2741

Case No. 16-md-02741-VC

This document relates to: 

Berliant v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-7189

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 198:

GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 7375

Berliant’s motion to remand is granted. Berliant claims that D&D Venture Group’s sale 

of Roundup was a “substantial factor” in his injury, either by causing his cancer or promoting its 

growth. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982 (1997). That claim is doubtful, 

as Monsanto has produced evidence that Berliant likely never purchased Roundup from D&D, 

which opened its hardware store in June 2016. See Pham Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, Dkt. No. 7836-2. And 

even if Berliant did purchase two bottles of Roundup from D&D in September 2016, see Berliant 

Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 7963-1, the scientific basis for finding so short a latency period or for 

concluding that the two bottles exacerbated a cancer caused by 27 years of Roundup exposure is 

shaky at best. But this dispute demands “a searching inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff’s 

case,” a task that this Court cannot perform at this time. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and 

through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549 (9th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, Berliant’s claims against D&D 

are not “wholly frivolous and insubstantial,” and thus cannot be disregarded for purposes of 

removal jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946)).

Berliant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with this motion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied because Monsanto had an objectively reasonable basis for removing 

this action to federal court. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). As 

Case 3:19-cv-07189-VC Document 14 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 2
2

explained above, although Berliant’s theory of relief is not wholly frivolous, it is dubious.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07189-VC Document 14 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 2