Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02555/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02555-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court notes that the February 22, 2008 Order to Show Cause directed plaintiffs to file a

response to that order by March 3, 2008, and stated that the matter would be taken under submission.

In response to that order, plaintiffs filed the “motion to produce prima facie showing pursuant to Cottle

v. Superior Court and request for leave for full briefing and hearing if required,” on March 3, 2008, and

the “motion for right to reopen case for prima facie plaintiffs if needed to cure any deficiencies in casein-chief” on March 14, 2008. Although the latter motion is untimely per the Order to Show Cause, in

the interest of fully addressing plaintiffs’ contentions on the merits, the Court will consider that motion.

The Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary, as this matter has been extensively briefed.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA AVILA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WILLITS ENVIRONMENTAL

REMEDIATION TRUST, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-3941 SI

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

PREJUDICE PRIMA FACIE

PLAINTIFFS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO PRODUCE PRIMA FACIE

SHOWING AND DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN

CASE

Plaintiffs have noticed two motions for a hearing on April 18, 2008. (Docket Nos. 1028 &

1055). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matters are appropriate for

resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing.1 For the reasons set forth below, the

Court DISMISSES the remaining prima facie plaintiffs with prejudice, and DENIES plaintiffs’ motions.

BACKGROUND

The procedural and factual background of this case has been set forth in the Court’s previous

orders and need not be repeated here. For purposes of the instant matters, the relevant facts are as

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

follows: 

Earlier in this litigation, defendants requested that the Court order two groups of plaintiffs –

those who had never lived in Willits and those who had only lived in Willits after November 1988 – to

submit a prima facie showing of exposure and medical causation (“prima facie plaintiffs”). By order

filed December 9, 2004, the Court granted defendants’ request. The Court noted that this litigation

began in 1999, and that given the length of time that had elapsed and the complexity of the issues, it was

reasonable to require those two groups of plaintiffs to make such a prima facie showing. See December

9, 2004 Order at 2. 

Case Management Order No. 4 (“CMO No. 4”), dated March 1, 2005, specifically set forth what

information and evidence these plaintiffs must provide to defendants in support of their claims. CMO

No. 4 required that each of the prima facie plaintiffs submit percipient and expert declarations setting

forth “all facts” supporting such plaintiff’s claimed exposure to hazardous substances discharged or

released by defendants’ predecessors, including the documents and witnesses to support each of those

facts. CMO No. 4 at 3. In addition, the Court required a written statement “from a physician, medical

and/or other expert” stating “a description of each injury, illness or condition for which such Plaintiff

seeks recovery in this action,” “the identity of the chemical to which such Plaintiff was exposed,” a

“statement that there is a reasonable medical probability that the exposure caused each injury, illness

or condition referred to above,” and a “statement of the scientific and medical basis upon which the

expert’s opinion is based.” Id. at 3-4. In Scheduling Order No. 6, filed on October 16, 2006, the Court

set a December 2006 deadline for these plaintiffs to present their prima facie case as required by CMO

No. 4. By order filed December 6, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to extend this deadline,

and set a new deadline of February 15, 2007. 

Plaintiffs provided their percipient and expert declarations to defendants by February 15, 2007.

Plaintiffs’ medical expert was Dr. Alan Levin, a physician/scientist/attorney. Dr. Levin provided a

declaration setting forth his opinions, including his core opinion that the prima facie plaintiffs were

exposed to dioxins and other chemicals from the Remco site, and that such exposure caused plaintiffs’

injuries. On June 22, 2007, defendants submitted their response to the submission from the prima facie

plaintiffs, including a motion to strike the declaration of Dr. Levin under Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Moreover, even if any portion of Dr. Levin’s opinions survived the Court’s February 6, 2008

order, Dr. Levin’s February 2007 report would not be suitable for judicial notice, as judicial notice is

reserved for documents and facts that are “generally known” or “capable of accurate and ready

3

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. After extensive briefing

and a lengthy hearing on the motion to strike, the Court granted defendants’ motion in a 29 page order

filed on February 6, 2008. In that order, the Court found that each and every one of Dr. Levin’s

opinions was speculative and inadmissible. The Court also reviewed and rejected on substantive

grounds nearly all of the untimely additional evidence submitted by plaintiffs, including a July 26, 2007

supplemental declaration of Dr. Levin; an August 8, 2007 declaration of Dr. Rash Ghosh; portions of

the Montgomery Watson “Draft Remedial Investigation Report”; certain deposition testimony, and the

August 9, 2007 declaration of Joe Holt. The Court further rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on their own

discovery responses, finding that to the extent that plaintiffs submitted these responses for the truth of

the matter asserted, they were hearsay. 

The Court then issued an Order to Show Cause why, in light of the Court’s order striking the

testimony of Dr. Levin, the prima facie plaintiffs should not be dismissed for failure to make the

required prima facie showing. In response to the Order to Show Cause, plaintiffs filed the instant

motions.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs raise a number of arguments in their efforts to avoid dismissal. Plaintiffs contend that,

notwithstanding the Court’s February 6, 2008 order striking the testimony of Dr. Levin, somehow Dr.

Levin’s ultimate causation conclusion is sufficient for a prima facie showing. Plaintiffs assert that Dr.

Levin made a prima facie case “even though the Court would not permit [Dr. Levin] to testify on certain

subjects at trial.” Docket No. 1028 at 2-3. Incredibly, plaintiffs also request that the Court take judicial

notice of Dr. Levin’s February 2007 declaration. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs’ argument is utterly nonsensical,

as the Court’s lengthy order striking Dr. Levin’s testimony held that all of Dr. Levin’s proferred

opinions were inadmissible. None of Dr. Levin’s opinions survived defendants’ Daubert motion, and

thus there is no ultimate causation conclusion to support a prima facie showing.2

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.

201(b). 

3

 For example, plaintiffs rely on the Versar report, despite the fact that the Court’s February 6,

2008 order held that Dr. Ghosh’s (and Dr. Levin’s) reliance on the “Versar map” was improper given

that it “does not contain any actual data on which a scientist could credibly rely.” Feb. 6 Order at 25.

Similarly, plaintiffs again cite the Montgomery Watson “Draft Remedial Investigation Report,” the

August 9, 2007 declaration of Joe Holt, the deposition testimony of Robert Quever, and their own

discovery responses, despite this Court’s order finding these documents inadmissible for various

reasons. Id. at 26-27. 

4

Plaintiffs also assert that they have made a sufficient prima facie showing through other evidence

that the Court has, for the most part, already ruled inadmissible.3 There are multiple, obvious flaws with

this argument. First, inadmissible evidence cannot support a prima facie showing. Second, none of the

evidence cited constitutes the required expert opinion that “there is a reasonable medical probability that

the exposure caused each injury, illness or condition.” CMO No. 4 at 4. Third, to the extent that

plaintiffs have submitted new evidence – such as a new declaration by Dr. Levin dated March 6, 2008

– such evidence is untimely and will not be considered.

Plaintiffs also assert that dismissal is procedurally improper because plaintiffs have never been

on notice that dismissal was possible absent defendants filing a dispositive motion. Plaintiffs’ argument

both flies in the face of the Court’s previous orders and defies common sense. As explained above, the

Court’s December 9, 2004 order held that certain plaintiffs would be required to make a prima facie

showing of exposure and causation; CMO No. 4 instructed plaintiffs that in order for their prima facie

showing to be deemed satisfactory, they would be expected to provide individual and expert declarations

supporting the necessary elements of their claims; and Scheduling Order No. 6 provided that “[t]he

personal injury and wrongful death claims of any Plaintiff who fails to provide the completed affidavits

to Defendants and the Court in accordance with the Court’s December 9, 2004 Order and [other sections

of Scheduling Order No. 6] above by [the deadline] shall be dismissed with prejudice from this action.”

Scheduling Order No. 6 at 2 (emphasis added). These orders make clear that any prima facie plaintiff

who failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing faced dismissal. Indeed, the Court earlier dismissed

16 prima facie plaintiffs based on their failure to make the necessary prima facie showing; in opposing

defendants’ motion to dismiss those 16 plaintiffs, plaintiffs never advanced the novel procedural

argument that they raise here.

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 The docket shows literally dozens of entries related to litigating the sufficiency of the prima

facie plaintiffs’ showing.

5

 Plaintiffs also assert that they were unable to provide the required prima facie evidence of

exposure and causation because current counsel only assumed control over this action in September

2006 and only received the complete set of case records in October 2006. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims

ring hollow, however, as current counsel filed this lawsuit in 1999. This case has been pending for 9

years, which is more than enough time for counsel to gather prima facie evidence in support of

plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, the Court notes that plaintiffs’ counsel requested and received one

extension of the prima facie deadline, and that February 15, 2007 was the new deadline proposed by

plaintiffs’ current counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not request another extension, and if they truly

believed that another extension was necessary, they could have requested one.

5

 Relatedly, plaintiffs contend that the Court should evaluate the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ prima

facie showing under a “nonsuit” standard, and that the Court cannot dismiss the prima facie plaintiffs

unless defendants first file a motion for nonsuit. As support, plaintiffs cite Lockheed Corporation v.

Continental Insurance Company, 134 Cal. App. 4th 187 (2005), which states that “[a] Cottle hearing

is in the nature of a motion for nonsuit in that the court tests the sufficiency of the evidence without

regard to conflicting evidence the opposing party may present.” Id. at 212. Plaintiffs’ argument misses

the mark because under any standard, the prima facie plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient showing

because they did not submit any competent expert evidence regarding exposure and causation. 

Finally, plaintiffs request to “reopen” the case to supplement their prima facie showing either

through a different expert, or through Dr. Levin but with a different methodology. Plaintiffs do not offer

any explanation as to why any of this evidence could not have been submitted by the February 15, 2007

deadline, and the Court finds no reason to “reopen” this case. Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to

gather the necessary prima facie evidence, and the Court and the parties have expended considerable

resources evaluating the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ February 2007 prima facie showing.4

 As the docket

in this case reflects, the Court has repeatedly granted plaintiffs extensions of various deadlines, and

provided plaintiffs numerous opportunities to correct or supplement various motions and discovery

responses. The Court has also repeatedly informed plaintiffs that it will not countenance further delays

in this 9 year litigation.5

 It is now time to reach a final resolution with respect to the prima facie

plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the remaining

prima facie plaintiffs due to their failure to make a sufficient prima facie showing of exposure and

causation, and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to produce prima facie showing and plaintiffs’ motion to

reopen case if necessary. (Docket Nos. 1028 & 1055). 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02555-SI Document 189 Filed 04/16/08 Page 6 of 6