Finley v. Monsanto Company
Plaintiff: Paul Finley
Defendant: Monsanto Company
Case Number: 3:2019cv06089
Filed: September 30, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Vince Chhabria
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 15, 2019 Filing 14 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byMonsanto Company. (Hollingsworth, Joe) (Filed on 10/15/2019)
October 15, 2019 Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Monsanto Company identifying Other Affiliate Bayer AG for Monsanto Company. (Hollingsworth, Joe) (Filed on 10/15/2019)
October 15, 2019 Filing 12 Certificate of Interested Entities by Monsanto Company identifying Other Affiliate Bayer AG for Monsanto Company. (Hollingsworth, Joe) (Filed on 10/15/2019)
September 25, 2019 Filing 11 CASE TRANSFERRED in from United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa); Case Number 8:19-cv-02158-VMC-AAS. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received.
September 25, 2019 MEMBER CASE OPENED: USDC, Middle District of Florida (Tampa), 8:19-cv-02158-VMC-AAS, Paul Finley -v- Monsanto Company, Opened in California Northern District as 3:19-cv-06089-VC pursuant to Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-152), MDL No. 2741 cc: JPMDL (tnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2019)
September 23, 2019 Filing 10 MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION panel CTO-152 order transferring case to: Northern District of California re: MDL case number: 2741. (AG)
September 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ENDORSED ORDER: In his status report (Doc. #8 ), Plaintiff "requests that this case be stayed pending transfer to MDL 2741, In Re:Roundup Products Liability Litigation." A stay pending a consolidation and transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation serves the primary purposes of the multidistrict litigation device, which is to "eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings... and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary." In re Cal. Retail Nat. Gas & Elec. Antitrust Litig., 150 F. Supp. 2d 1383, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2001). Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, this Court stays this matter until such time as the Panel has dispositively ruled as to whether this case will be transferred to another Court for consolidated multidistrict litigation. In so staying this case, this Court is mindful of its broad discretion over the manner in which it manages the cases before it, Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002), and finds that the stay is reasonable. The Clerk is directed to stay and administratively close this case, including all pending deadlines, until such time as the Panel has dispositively ruled as to whether this case will be transferred to another court for consolidated multidistrict litigation. Plaintiff is directed to immediately inform the Court when the Panel has made its final ruling. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/6/2019. (DMD)
September 6, 2019 Filing 8 RESPONSE re 7 Order filed by Paul Finley. (Grinder, Austin)
September 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ENDORSED ORDER: The Court has reason to believe that this action is subject to MDL 2741, In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. Plaintiff is accordingly directed to advise the Court by September 12, 2019, of the status of this case and whether this action should be stayed pending transfer to the MDL. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/5/2019. (DMD)
September 4, 2019 Filing 6 PROOF of service by Paul Finley (Grinder, Austin)
August 29, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to effect service of process as required by Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P., and file proof thereof with the Court as soon as service has been effected. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/29/2019. (TWL)
August 29, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/29/2019. (TWL)
August 29, 2019 Filing 3 SUMMONS issued as to Monsanto Company. (BES)
August 28, 2019 Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. New case number: 8:19-cv-2158-T-33AAS. (SJB)
August 28, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Monsanto Company with Jury Demand (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 113A-15859010) filed by Paul Finley. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Grinder, Austin)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Finley v. Monsanto Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Paul Finley
Represented By: Austin Johnson Grinder
Represented By: Eric D. Roslansky
Represented By: Austin Johnson Grinder,
Represented By: Eric Daniel Roslansky,
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Monsanto Company
Represented By: Joe G. Hollingsworth
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?