Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00525/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00525-16/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITGATION

MDL No. 2741

Case No. 16-md-02741-VC

This document relates to: 

Hardeman v. Monsanto, 3:16-cv-00525-VC PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 144:

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO 

FORM OF JUDGMENT

Dkt. Nos. 3272, 3350

Monsanto is correct that it is unnecessary and potentially confusing to include language 

about appealability. However, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant Monsanto’s 

request for a stay of enforcement pending appeal. See Max Sound Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 

5:14-cv-04412-EJD, 2019 WL 480544, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2019) (quoting Dillon v. City 

of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904-05 (7th Cir. 1988)). Finally, although Monsanto did not raise it, 

the post-judgment interest rate contained in the proposed judgment is legally incorrect. See 

AT&T Co. v. United Comp. Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996) (“In diversity actions, 

state law determines the rate of prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest is governed by 

federal law.”); see also Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th 

Cir. 2004). The federal interest rate applies to this judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

The Court will enter judgment in accordance with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 3, 2019 ___________________________

Honorable Vince Chhabria

United States District Court

Case 3:16-cv-00525-VC Document 305 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 1