Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 79 Civ. 747
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft by Michael M. Gordon, New York City, for Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co |
| Citation | 781 F. Supp. 902 |
| Parties | Michael F. RYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Monsanto Company, Hercules Incorporated, T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc., Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, Uniroyal Inc., and Thompson Chemicals Corporation, Defendants. In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. Shirley IVY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Ronald L. HARTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. 79 Civ. 747,89 Civ. 3361 and 90 Civ. 3928,MDL No. 381. |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1991 |
781 F. Supp. 902
Michael F. RYAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Monsanto Company, Hercules Incorporated, T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc., Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, Uniroyal Inc., and Thompson Chemicals Corporation, Defendants.
In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Shirley IVY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Ronald L. HARTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Nos. 79 Civ. 747, 89 Civ. 3361 and 90 Civ. 3928, MDL No. 381.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
October 4, 1991.
As Amended November 15, 1991.
Robert M. Hager, Washington, D.C., for Ivy plaintiffs.
Kelly L. Newman, Houston, Tex., for Hartman plaintiffs.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft by Michael M. Gordon, New York City, for Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co.
Clark, Gagliardi & Miller by Morton B. Silberman, White Plains, N.Y., for T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co., Inc.
Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith by John C. Sabetta, New York City, for Monsanto Co.
Kelley, Drye & Warren by William C. Heck, New York City, for Hercules Inc.
Rivkin, Radler, Bayh, Hart & Kremer by Steven Brock, Uniondale, N.Y., for Dow Chemical Co.
Shea & Gould by Myron Kalish, New York City, for Uniroyal, Inc.
WEINSTEIN, District Judge:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 904
A. Agent Orange Litigation: 1979-1984 ..................... 904
B. The Settlement Agreement ............................... 908
C. Dismissal of Opt-Out Claims ............................ 908
D. Appeals ................................................ 909
II. OPERATION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND ........................... 909
A. Veteran Payment Program ................................ 910
B. Class Assistance Program ............................... 911
III. THE PRESENT ACTIONS ........................................ 911
A. Hartman I .............................................. 912
B. Ivy and Hartman II ..................................... 912
IV. LAW ........................................................ 914
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............................ 914
1. Adequacy of Notice of Removal ...................... 914
2. Court's Retained Jurisdiction ...................... 915
3. Court's Power to Enforce Its Injunction ............ 916
4. Federal Nature of Plaintiffs' Claims ............... 916
5. Court's Power to Order Removal ..................... 918
B. Motion to Dismiss ...................................... 918
V. EQUITY ..................................................... 918
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................. 920
VII. APPENDICES
Plaintiffs consist of two groups: first, those veterans and family members within the class covered by the Agent Orange class action pending in this court, and second, civilians claiming injury from Agent Orange who were never members of the class. Defendants are the same as those in the class action.
The current suits began as state court actions in Texas. They were removed to the federal court in Texas and then transferred by the Multidistrict Panel to the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs now seek to remand their actions to Texas state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims or for an injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from continuing their actions.
As explained in this memorandum, the plaintiffs who are members of the Agent Orange class must have their suits dismissed; they are free to share in the proceeds of the class action settlement to the extent they can demonstrate entitlement under the distribution plans being administered by the court. As it pertains to the civilian plaintiffs — who are not members of the class — the plaintiffs' motion to remand raises issues concerning the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) that require further consideration. These issues will be addressed in a separate memorandum.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agent Orange Litigation: 1979-1984
The current controversy is part of a continuing litigation whose first phase ended in settlement after six years of effort by scores of lawyers and many court officers — special masters, magistrates, and judges. Among the hundreds of published and unpublished decisions, see In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 475 F.Supp. 928 (E.D.N.Y.1979) (dismissing federal constitutional and statutory claims, reserving possible federal common law
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 79 Civ. 747
...in Texas and then transferred to this court by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. In In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 781 F.Supp. 902, (E.D.N.Y.1991), the veteran actions were dismissed because the plaintiffs in those actions were members of the class whose action was set......
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit., Nos. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).
...Nov 05, 1996) (unpublished disposition); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 996 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir.1993); Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F.Supp. 902 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack prior settlement); In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990) (MDL Panel had jurisdiction to ......
-
In re DES cases, No. CV 91-3748
...and supervise nontraditional remedies, such as trusts for future claimants. See, e.g., In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 781 F.Supp. 902, 909-11 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (describing establishment and operation of programs to distribute settlement Existing procedural law can provide some assist......
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, No. MDL 381.
...statute); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 97 CV 1976, 1999 WL 1045197 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.21, 1999); Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F.Supp. 902 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack prior settlement); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 689 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D.N.Y.1988......
-
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 79 Civ. 747
...in Texas and then transferred to this court by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. In In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 781 F.Supp. 902, (E.D.N.Y.1991), the veteran actions were dismissed because the plaintiffs in those actions were members of the class whose action was set......
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit., Nos. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).
...Nov 05, 1996) (unpublished disposition); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 996 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir.1993); Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F.Supp. 902 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack prior settlement); In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990) (MDL Panel had jurisdiction to ......
-
In re DES cases, No. CV 91-3748
...and supervise nontraditional remedies, such as trusts for future claimants. See, e.g., In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 781 F.Supp. 902, 909-11 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (describing establishment and operation of programs to distribute settlement Existing procedural law can provide some assist......
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, No. MDL 381.
...statute); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 97 CV 1976, 1999 WL 1045197 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.21, 1999); Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F.Supp. 902 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (plaintiffs cannot collaterally attack prior settlement); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 689 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D.N.Y.1988......