header-left
File #: 1524-2023    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 5/16/2023 In control: Criminal Justice & Judiciary Committee
On agenda: 6/12/2023 Final action: 6/14/2023
Title: To approve the settlement in the case of the City of Long Beach, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS and to accept a deposit of $32,414.03 to be deposited into the General Fund. ($32,414.03)
Background
Plaintiffs City of Long Beach, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, City of Berkeley, City of Chula Vista, County of Los Angeles, City of Oakland, City of Portland, Port of Portland, City of San Diego, City of San Jose, and City of Spokane filed lawsuits against Defendant in district courts in their respective jurisdictions. In their complaints, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant manufactured a class of industrial chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) between the 1930s and 1977 and stated various causes of action against Defendant for alleged PCB-related impairments to the environment, including to water bodies. Plaintiffs alleged that PCBs are present at sites and public properties, including in stormwater, stormwater and wastewater systems, water bodies, sediment, natural resources, fish and wildlife. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and injunctive and equitable relief.
On March 14, 2022, the Court entered an order certifying the Action as a class action, and specifically certifying a Nationwide Class defined as: As of June 24, 2020 only, but not later, all NPDES Phase I and II city, town, village, borough, township, and independent port district MS4 permittees with jurisdictional boundaries within a HUC 12 Watershed that contains and/or is immediately adjoining a 303(d) water body impaired by PCBs and all NPDES Phase I and II county MS4 permittees with urbanized, unincorporated boundaries within a HUC 12 Watershed that contains and/or is immediately adjoining a 303(d) water body impaired by PCBs. The claims certified for class-action treatment include claims that Defendant’s PCBs and PCB-containing products were defectively designed, that the risks of environmental harm associated with PCBs and PCB-containing products outweighed the benefits of their uses, that Defendant failed to warn of the risks of harm associated with PCBs and PCB-containing products, and that Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members suffered property dam...

Click here for full text