Giannini vs. Monsanto Company

Rule 3.400(c) identifies the following types of claims as provisionally complex: “(1) Antitrust or trade regulation claims; [¶] (2) Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures; [¶] (3) Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties; [¶] (4) Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties; [¶] (5) Claims involving mass torts; [¶] (6) Claims involving class actions; or [¶] (7) Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed in (c)(1) through (c)(6).”

“With or without a hearing, the court may decide on its own motion, or on a noticed motion by any party, that a civil action is a complex case or that an action previously declared to be a complex case is not a complex case.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.403.) Neither the parties’ stipulation nor the lack of any opposition to a motion to deem a case complex justifies granting such a motion. As with motions to seal documents, the court must independently review the matter and determine whether a case meets the standards of rule 3.400.

Here, the parties’ motion is a single paragraph asking the court to designate this case as complex under rule 3.403. It states the motion is made on the ground “this action requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the Court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the Court, the parties, and counsel.” Nothing further is stated and no evidence is offered in support of the motion.

The parties later filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing on this motion. That application includes a more robust discussion, but it focuses on the reasons and justification for advancing the hearing. It too fails to provide any explanation or evidence to support designating this case as complex. Indeed, the parties have not made any showing to justify designating this case as complex.

This case does not fall within any of the categories of cases that are deemed provisionally complex by rule 3.400(c). The closest categories would be environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties or claims involving mass torts. This case, however, is neither because Plaintiff are spouses asserting claims based solely on plaintiff Stephen Giannini’s exposure to Roundup, and there are just four defendants.

Similarly, not only have the parties failed to address any of the factors identified rule 3.400(b), the court finds none of those factors apply so as to warrant a complex case designation. There have not been numerous pretrial motions in this case—let alone pretrial motions raising difficult or novel issues that will be time consuming to resolve—there are currently no other motions on calendar, and the parties have not identified any future motions. Indeed, other than this motion, the only motions or applications that have been filed in this case are applications to admit counsel pro hac vice.

There has been no showing regarding the volume of witnesses or documentary evidence that will be involved in this case or the time or effort required to do so. As already noted, this case does not involve the management of a large number of separately represented parties. There are just two plaintiffs who are represented by the same attorneys, and four defendants who are represented by the same attorneys. This case arises out of a single person’s exposure to Roundup and the injuries that exposure allegedly caused.

There has been no showing this case requires coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court. The court acknowledges there have been many previous cases by other plaintiffs regarding exposure to Roundup. Some of those cases have been resolved and many others remain pending. There has been no showing, however, as to the need for any coordination. This case presents unique issues relating to plaintiff Stephen Giannini’s exposure to Roundup and whether that exposure caused his cancer. Similarly, there has been no showing there will be a need for substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

A very significant fact the parties failed to bring to the court’s attention or acknowledge is that Plaintiffs filed this case as a complex case under rule 3.400 based on their contention exceptional judicial management was necessary because of (1) a large number of separately represented parties and (2) the need for coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court. (See Civil Case Coversheet, ROA 3.) At the time of filing, this case therefore originally was assigned to a judge of this court’s complex civil panel.

On February 11, 2025, however, following a careful review by the assigned complex judge, that judge determined this case is not complex and referred it for assignment to a judge on the unlimited civil panel. (See Feb. 11, 2025 Minute Order.) There has been no effort to rebut or otherwise overcome that determination.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to deem this case complex is DENIED. Given the trial date in this matter was vacated by the May 20, 2026 Minute Order, the court sets a trial setting conference for August 27, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., in Department W15. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

14. Dababneh vs. CSAA Insurance Exchange 2026-01556698 Before the court is the petition by petitioners Shadi Khaled Dababneh and Roxanna Juarez Noria (collectively, Petitioner) to compel respondent CSAA Insurance Exchange (Respondent) to participate in uninsured motorist arbitration. As more fully set forth below, the petition is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for proof of service and supplemental information required to grant the petition.

California Rule of Court 3.1330 requires that a petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 1281.2 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.

Here, the arbitration agreement is neither attached nor set forth verbatim. The petition merely states Respondent agreed to provide uninsured motorist coverage to Petitioners. Attached to the petition is a declaration page. That page does not set forth the terms of any arbitration agreement between the parties. The fact that underinsured motorist arbitration is at issue does not excuse compliance with this requirement. The parties may agree to expand such arbitration beyond the statutorily required issue, and therefore a copy of the agreement is required.

Moreover, the declarations page attached to the petition does not identify Petitioners as insured. Rather, it identifies Scott, Helen, and Jacob Hall of San Jose, California as the insured. In addition, the proof of service attached to the motion to compel arbitration fails to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, and therefore is not sufficient. That code section states as follows: