Employees at the Clark County Government Center and/or on Its Property v. Monsanto Company

Employees at Clark County Gov't. Ctr. v. Monsanto · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 29, 2025 · No. 25-6625

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order remanding a mass action involving alleged PCB exposure at the Clark County Government Center to Nevada state court. The court held that the Class Action Fairness Act’s local controversy exception did not apply because the principal injuries resulting from the Monsanto successors’ alleged nationwide PCB-related conduct were not incurred in Nevada. The court remanded for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Eric D. Miller; Kim McLane Wardlaw
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
December 29, 2025
Docket number
25-6625
Procedural posture
Defendants appealed, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, from the district court's order remanding the mass action to Nevada state court after finding that CAFA jurisdiction existed but that the local controversy exception applied.
Standard of review
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's remand order de novo.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
Monsanto Company, Pharmacia LLC, Solutia Inc. v. Employees at the Clark County Government Center and/or on Its Property
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

class actionsappellate jurisdictionstatutory interpretationenvironmental lawappellate procedure

Practice areas

Class Action Fairness Actfederal jurisdictionremoval and remandenvironmental tortsstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the mass action satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements.
  2. Whether CAFA's local controversy exception applied because the principal injuries resulting from Old Monsanto's alleged conduct were incurred in Nevada.
  3. Whether the district court properly remanded the action to state court.

Holdings

  1. CAFA jurisdiction existed because the action involved more than 100 plaintiffs, minimal diversity was present, and the notice of removal plausibly alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.
  2. The local controversy exception did not apply because the plaintiffs could not establish that the principal injuries resulting from each defendant's alleged conduct were incurred in Nevada.
  3. The principal-injuries requirement calls for a comparative analysis of the most important or significant injuries resulting from each defendant's alleged conduct, considering injuries inside and outside the forum state.

Key quotations

The statute thus requires a comparative analysis of the injuries incurred in the forum State and the injuries incurred elsewhere to see whether those incurred in the forum State are the most significant. (8)
Plaintiffs’ allegations against Old Monsanto strongly suggest that its alleged conduct in producing and selling PCBs caused injury to people everywhere that products containing PCBs were used. (9)
The geographical diversity of those cases would further confirm our conclusion. (10)

Factual background

The plaintiffs are 169 individuals who worked at the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas, which was built on a former Union Pacific rail-yard site. They alleged that toxic waste at the site included PCBs manufactured, sold, and distributed by Old Monsanto, which allegedly manufactured more than 99 percent of the PCBs sold in the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that exposure caused serious injuries, including neurological disorders, cancer, and death, and asserted claims for compensatory and punitive damages against multiple defendants.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs filed the action in Nevada state court. Pharmacia removed it to federal court under CAFA, and plaintiffs moved to remand. The District of Nevada granted the remand motion, concluding that the local controversy exception applied. The Ninth Circuit granted permission to appeal the remand order and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The district court's order remanding the action to state court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…