Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01960/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01960-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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: 

Acosta v. Monsanto Co., 18-cv-1960 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 162:

DENYING MOTION TO REMAND IN 

ACOSTA V. MONSANTO CO.

Dkt. No. 2674

Construing Acosta’s notice of supplemental authority as a motion to remand, the motion is 

denied on timeliness grounds. Acosta filed the motion almost a year after her case was removed, 

and a violation of the forum-defendant rule is not a jurisdictional defect. See Lively v. Wild Oats 

Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (setting a 30-day time limit 

for motions to remand). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 17, 2019 ___________________________

Honorable Vince Chhabria

United States District Court

Case 3:18-cv-01960-VC Document 15 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 1