Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 79 Civ. 747,89 Civ. 3361 and 90 Civ. 3928,MDL No. 381.,79 Civ. 747 |
| 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. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
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.
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.
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) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 737 (E.D.N.Y.1979) (), rev'd, 635 F.2d 981 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128, 102 S.Ct. 980, 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 28 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghan) 993 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (granting motion of terminally ill plaintiff to videotape his own deposition); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 750 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 753 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 754 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (ordering videotaped deposition); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 756 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 757 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 506 F.Supp. 762 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 91 F.R.D. 616 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 91 F.R.D. 618 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 93 F.R.D. 514 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 534 F.Supp. 1046 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 537 F.Supp. 977 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 94 F.R.D. 173 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 544 F.Supp. 808 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 95 F.R.D. 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 95 F.R.D. 192 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 96 F.R.D. 578 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 96 F.R.D. 582 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 96 F.R.D. 587 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.R.D. 424 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (adopting protective order); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.R.D. 424 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.R.D. 427 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.R.D. 541 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 97 F.R.D. 542 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 565 F.Supp. 1263 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 98 F.R.D. 522 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 98 F.R.D. 539 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 98 F.R.D. 554 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (); In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 98 F.R.D. 557 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit.
... ... In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION ... Joe Isaacson and Phillis Lisa Isaacson, Plaintiffs, ... Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants, ... Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al., Plaintiffs, ... Dow Chemical Company, et al., Defendants ... Nos. MDL 381, ... v. Stephenson, 539 U.S. 111, 123 S.Ct. 2161, 156 L.Ed.2d 106 (2003) (per curiam); Dow Chemical Co. v. Ryan, 484 U.S. 953, 108 S.Ct. 344, 98 L.Ed.2d 370 (1987); Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., 346 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.2003); Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., ... ...
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
... ... The Dow Chemical Company; Monsanto Company; Monsanto Chemical Company; Pharmacia Corporation; Hercules Incorporated; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Ultramar Diamond ... 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., ... ...
-
In re DES cases, CV 91-3748
... ... Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., previously known as G.W. Carnrick Co., Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromalloy American Corp., Cooper Holdings, Inc., previously known as Cooper Laboratories, Dart Industries, Inc., previously known as Rexall ... Emmett J. Ganz, Law Offices of Emmett J. Ganz, Beverly Hills, Cal., Charles M. McCaghey, Ryan, Ryan, Johnson, Clear & DeLuca, Stamford, Conn., for Boyle & Co ... George I. Greene, Leslie McHugh, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, ... ...
-
Removal jurisdiction and the All Writs Act.
...WL 507801, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 1994) (same); Neuman v. Goldberg, 159 B.R. 681, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (same); Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F. Supp. 902, 918 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (same); Ludlow Park Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Westchester, 741 F. Supp. 1126, 1130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (same); Nowli......
-
David A. Dana, Adequacy of Representation After Stephenson: a Rawlsian/behavioral Economics Approach to Class Action Settlements
...Richard A. Nagareda, Administering Adequacy in Class Representation, 82 TEX. L. REV. 287, 315-23 (2003); see also Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 902, 919-20 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (explaining that "[c]lass action settlements" would not occur if the parties could not "set definitive limits on ......