Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05931/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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: 

Dalby v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5925

Lockwood Fleischer v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5931

Franco v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5940

Wise v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5942

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 183:

LIFTING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

DISMISSING MULTI-PLAINTIFF 

COMPLAINTS

Re: Dkt. No. 6238

In Pretrial Order No. 179, Dkt. No. 6238, the Court ordered the plaintiffs in these related 

cases to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing multi-plaintiff complaints

directly in the Northern District of California. The complaints appeared to blatantly contradict 

the rules of personal jurisdiction and venue.

The plaintiffs explain that their statements of venue and personal jurisdiction were 

“contemplated to apply to the lead plaintiff in the Complaint.” Response at ¶ 8 n.1, Dkt. No. 

6446. But the plaintiffs still anticipated the filing of short-form complaints in the Northern 

District of California on behalf of the other plaintiffs. That is unacceptable. To file directly in 

this district, there must be jurisdiction over each plaintiff and each claim. See Bristol-Myers 

Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781–83 (2017).

The plaintiffs also point to two prior multi-plaintiff complaints filed by the same law 

firm. Response ¶¶ 5–6. The prior use of an ethically dubious tactic in two cases (out of the 

thousands of cases in this MDL) is no reason to assume “the Court’s tacit approval.” Id. ¶ 10.

Every party is bound to refrain from sanctionable conduct, even if their lawyers had previously 

Case 3:19-cv-05931-VC Document 7 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 2
2

engaged in the same conduct that has thus far gone undiscovered.

At this time, however, the Court will refrain from sanctioning counsel. The multi-plaintiff 

complaints in these related cases are instead dismissed without prejudice in light of the plainly 

insufficient allegations of personal jurisdiction or venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)–(3). A shortform single-plaintiff complaint may be filed in this district only if there is personal jurisdiction 

and proper venue. Any other course of action would circumvent the restrictions on this Court’s 

power and Congress’ decision to delegate the transfer process to the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c).

Going forward, Monsanto is directed to review complaints filed directly in this district for 

compliance with the requirements of personal jurisdiction and venue. A report of the noncompliant cases filed in the preceding month is due at the beginning of the next month—e.g., a 

December 1 report on November cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05931-VC Document 7 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 2