Smith et al v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 63

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 177: GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 9/30/2019. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2019)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

This document relates to:

MDL No. 2741
Case No. 16-md-02741-VC
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 177:
GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Smith v. Monsanto Co., 17-cv-2142
Aultman v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5236
Borum v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5242

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5614, 5621, 5624, 5627, 5633,
5635, 5638, 5640, 5642, 5644, 5646, 5648,
5650

Butterfield v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5243
Connell v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5244
Costa v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5245
Gerlach v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5246
Gniadek v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5249
Gordon v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5252
Hoffman v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5253
Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5255
Jones v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5256
King v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-5258

The motions to dismiss filed by Osborn & Barr Communications and Osborn & Barr
Holdings are granted. Each plaintiff in the related cases voluntarily dismissed Osborn & Barr
with prejudice in July 2017. See 17-cv-2142-VC, Dkt. No. 27. But two years later, these 13
plaintiffs raised the same claims against Osborn & Barr in their short-form complaints. Osborn &
Barr moved to dismiss on the basis of claim preclusion, and none of the plaintiffs filed an
opposition.

A voluntary dismissal with prejudice has claim-preclusive effect. See Concha v. London,
62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995). Each plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted against Osborn & Barr. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2019
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2