Case Name: Wayne Charles OKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MONSANTO COMPANY, The Solaris Group, Scotts Company, successor in interest to Monsanto Company and the Solaris Group, Dow Agrosciences, LLC, Dow Agrosciences, as successor in interest to DowElanco, DowElanco, as successor in interest to Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-12
Citations: 419 F.3d 1312
Docket Number: No. 02-15943
Parties: Wayne Charles OKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MONSANTO COMPANY, The Solaris Group, Scotts Company, successor in interest to Monsanto Company and the Solaris Group, Dow Agrosciences, LLC, Dow Agrosciences, as successor in interest to DowElanco, DowElanco, as successor in interest to Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY , District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 419
Pages: 1312–1312

Head Matter:
Wayne Charles OKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The MONSANTO COMPANY, The Solaris Group, Scotts Company, successor in interest to Monsanto Company and the Solaris Group, Dow Agrosciences, LLC, Dow Agrosciences, as successor in interest to DowElanco, DowElanco, as successor in interest to Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-15943.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 12, 2005.
Stuart Calwell, Attorney at Law, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Wendy F. Lumish, Carlton Fields PA, Samuel A. Danon, Hunton & Williams, Miami, FL, Dean T. Barnhard, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, IN, Lawrence Evan Margolis, Daniels, Kashtan, Downs, Robertson & Magathan, Coral Gables, FL, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, FL, Shelly H. Leinicke, Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY , District Judge.
Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of this court, 317 F.3d 1312, and remanded "for further consideration in light of Bates v. Dow Agrosci-ences LLC, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1788, 161 L.Ed.2d 687." — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1968, 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005). Pursuant to this order, we remand this case to the district court for further consideration in light of Bates.