City Of Oakland v. Monsanto Company et al
Filing
126
ORDER DENYING 118 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR APPEAL. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/6/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
10
CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Case No. 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF
ORDER FOR APPEAL
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
12
13
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 147
Defendants.
14
15
16
CITY OF OAKLAND,
Plaintiff,
17
Case No. 5:15-cv-05152-EJD
Re: Dkt. No. 118
v.
18
19
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
20
21
CITY OF BERKELEY,
22
Plaintiff,
23
24
25
Case No. 5:16-cv-00071-EJD
Re: Dkt. No. 111
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
26
27
28
1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR
APPEAL
1
In these related cases, Plaintiffs City of San Jose, City of Oakland, and City of Berkeley
2
(the “Cities”) seek damages from Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia
3
LLC (“Monsanto”) arising from Monsanto’s production of environmental contaminants called
4
polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). The Cities allege that Monsanto’s PCBs pollute the San
5
Francisco Bay (the “Bay”) through stormwater and dry weather runoff from the Cities, forcing the
6
Cities to spend money to reduce PCB discharge in order to comply with state and federal
7
regulations.
This Court previously ordered that the Cities’ federal cases must be stayed while the
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Cities’ administrative actions are pending. The Cities now move for certification of that order for
interlocutory appeal. The Cities’ motion will be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Cities are currently pursuing test claims before the California Commission on State
13
Mandates in which they seek reimbursement for the costs of complying with state permit
14
obligations. Order Granting Defs.’ Mot. to Stay (“Stay Order”) 2–4, Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt.
15
No. 144; Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. No. 116; Case No. 16-cv-71, Dkt. No. 109. Monsanto argued
16
that the Cities are seeking the same relief before the Commission and before this Court, and so
17
they must exhaust their administrative test claims before their federal actions can proceed. Id. at
18
4–5. This Court agreed, finding that “there is substantial overlap” between the Cities’ test claims
19
and their federal cases because both actions “seek the same recovery for the same injury.” Id. at 5.
20
Accordingly, on August 4, 2017, this Court issued an order that stayed the Cities’ actions until
21
February 8, 2018 (following the next scheduled hearing on the Cities’ test claims before the
22
Commission). Id. at 4, 6.
23
The Cities now move for certification of the Stay Order for interlocutory appeal under 28
24
U.S.C. § 1292(b). Pls.’ Mot. for Certification of Order for Appeal (“Mot.”), Case No. 15-cv-3178,
25
Dkt. No. 147; Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. No. 118; Case No. 16-cv-71, Dkt. No. 111.
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR
APPEAL
1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
In general, a party may appeal a district court’s rulings only after the entry of final
3
judgment. In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 1981).
4
However, in “extraordinary cases,” a district court can certify an order for interlocutory appeal
5
when (1) the order “involves a controlling question of law,” (2) “there is substantial ground for
6
difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
7
ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d
8
784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966). Appeals under § 1292(b) are “hen’s-teeth rare.” Simmons v. Akanno,
9
No. 1:09-cv-00659-GBC (PC), 2011 WL 1566583, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2011) (quoting
Camacho v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 369 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir. 2004)).
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
III.
12
DISCUSSION
The Cities argue that the Stay Order presents several “controlling question[s] of law.”
13
First, the Cities “seek clarification from the Ninth Circuit regarding whether the Cities are seeking
14
the same remedies in both the administrative and judicial proceedings.” Mot. 3. But this is not a
15
pure question of law. See Halloum v. McCormick Barstow LLP, No. C-15-2181 EMC, No. C-15-
16
2183 EMC, 2015 WL 4512599, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (holding that an appeal under §
17
1292(b) is appropriate for a “pure question of law,” but not for “a mixed question of law and fact
18
or the application of law to a particular set of facts”). The Cities and Monsanto agree that, as a
19
matter of law, a party must exhaust its administrative remedies before pursuing its claim in court.
20
Stay Order 4 (citing Abelleira v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 17 Cal. 2d 280, 292 (1941)).
21
They disagree about whether this Court correctly applied that principle to the facts of these cases.
22
This Court decided that the Cities’ test claims “seek the same recovery for the same injury” that
23
the Cities allege in their federal actions—and, as a result, the Cities must exhaust their
24
administrative remedies before their federal actions can proceed. Id. at 4–6. If the Cities disagree
25
with the Court’s application of the law to the facts, the proper vehicle is a motion for
26
reconsideration, not an interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b). See Meeker v. Belridge Water
27
28
3
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR
APPEAL
1
Storage Dist., No. 1:05-CV-00603 OWW SMS, 2007 WL 781889, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2007)
2
(“The appropriate mechanism for redress of factual errors is a motion for reconsideration, not an
3
interlocutory appeal.”); see also Civil L.R. 7-9.
Second, the Cities “seek clarification from the Ninth Circuit regarding . . . whether their
4
5
lawsuits must be dismissed.” Mot. 3. But the Stay Order did not address whether the Cities’ cases
6
must be dismissed. Rather, it decided that their cases must be stayed while their administrative
7
claims are pending.
8
Third, the Cities “seek immediate clarification from the Ninth Circuit regarding the
9
appropriate forum for their public nuisance claims.” Mot. 3. But the Stay Order did not decide that
federal court was not the appropriate forum for the Cities’ public nuisance claims. Rather, it held
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
that “the Cities must exhaust their administrative remedies before they can seek relief from the
12
courts” under their public nuisance theory. Stay Order 5 (emphasis added).
13
IV.
14
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Cities have not shown that the Stay Order raises a “controlling
15
question of law” as required by 28 U.S.C § 1292(b). As such, the Cities’ motion for certification
16
of that order for interlocutory appeal must be DENIED.
17
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR
APPEAL
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?