Hardeman v. Monsanto Company et al
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 144: ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO FORM OF JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/3/2019. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2019)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?