PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 198: GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 7375

VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

Berliant's motion to remand is granted. Berliant claims that D&D Venture Group's sale of Roundup was a "substantial factor" in his injury, either by causing his cancer or promoting its growth. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953, 982 (1997). That claim is doubtful, as Monsanto has produced evidence that Berliant likely never purchased Roundup from D&D, which opened its hardware store in June 2016. See Pham Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Dkt. No. 7836-2. And even if Berliant did purchase two bottles of Roundup from D&D in September 2016, see Berliant Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 7963-1, the scientific basis for finding so short a latency period or for concluding that the two bottles exacerbated a cancer caused by 27 years of Roundup exposure is shaky at best. But this dispute demands "a searching inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff's case," a task that this Court cannot perform at this time. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 549 (9th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, Berliant's claims against D&D are not "wholly frivolous and insubstantial," and thus cannot be disregarded for purposes of removal jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)).

Berliant's request for attorney's fees and costs associated with this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied because Monsanto had an objectively reasonable basis for removing this action to federal court. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). As explained above, although Berliant's theory of relief is not wholly frivolous, it is dubious.

IT IS SO ORDERED.