City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company
2:16-cv-00107
| W.D. Wash. | Mar 21, 2023Background
- City of Seattle filed a Second Amended Complaint (July 27, 2022) asserting a single claim: intentional public nuisance against Monsanto.
- Monsanto answered and asserted numerous affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, lack of standing, primary jurisdiction/exhaustion, economic loss, preemption, statute-of-limitations defenses, estoppel/waiver/consent, and several defenses tied to claims no longer pleaded (e.g., negligence, products liability).
- Seattle moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of many of Monsanto’s affirmative defenses. The City’s Rule 56 burden was to show absence of evidence supporting essential elements of those defenses.
- The Court granted dismissal of several defenses: failure to state a claim; lack of standing; primary jurisdiction and administrative exhaustion; economic loss doctrine; defenses tied to claims not alleged; statute-of-limitations defenses; and estoppel.
- The Court denied wholesale resolution of other defenses (e.g., preemption, certain waiver/consent/unclean hands issues, allocation/statutory compliance, collateral source) and left them for Monsanto’s summary judgment motion or for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense | Seattle: dismissal because it is not a proper affirmative defense | Monsanto: pleaded failure to state a claim | Court: dismissed; failure to state a claim is not a proper affirmative defense |
| Standing | Seattle: City has property injury and standing for public nuisance | Monsanto: City lacks standing | Court: dismissed defense; City previously found to have standing |
| Primary jurisdiction / exhaustion | Seattle: court action appropriate; not dependent on agency orders | Monsanto: EPA/Ecology or other agencies have primary jurisdiction and City failed to exhaust | Court: dismissed primary jurisdiction and exhaustion defenses as inapplicable here |
| Economic loss doctrine | Seattle: doctrine inapplicable absent contract between parties | Monsanto: economic loss bars tort recovery | Court: dismissed economic loss defense (no contract alleged) |
| Preemption | Seattle: state/common-law nuisance claims survive where statutes have savings clauses | Monsanto: federal/state statutes (TSCA, FDCA, CERCLA, OSHA, WPLA, etc.) preempt claim | Court: declined to resolve on this motion; left for Monsanto’s summary judgment or trial |
| Estoppel / unclean hands / waiver / consent | Seattle: City acted in governmental capacity for common good; estoppel inapplicable | Monsanto: equitable defenses available | Court: dismissed estoppel (City acted in governmental capacity); left other equitable defenses for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 864 F. Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (explaining Rule 56 burden when seeking summary judgment on affirmative defenses)
- Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing the primary jurisdiction doctrine)
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) (listing factors for applying primary jurisdiction)
- Kaiser v. CSL Plasma Inc., 240 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (holding failure to state a claim is not a proper affirmative defense)
- Berschauer/Phillips Const. Co. v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 124 Wn.2d 816 (Wash. 1994) (articulating the economic loss doctrine in Washington)
- City of Mercer Island v. Steinmann, 9 Wash. App. 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973) (discussing equitable estoppel against municipalities and governmental vs. proprietary capacity)