From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monlux v. 3M Co.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 31, 2024
2:24-cv-00912-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 31, 2024)

Opinion

2:24-cv-00912-LK

07-31-2024

ELAINE M. MONLUX, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY et al., Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1 AND LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.1

Lauren King United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On June 24, 2024, Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation removed this action to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). See Dkt. No. 1 at 8-13. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(1), any nongovernmental corporate party must file a statement that either (A) “identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock” or (B) “states that there is no such corporation.” This district's Local Civil Rules require more. A nongovernmental party “other than an individual or sole proprietorship” must file a corporate disclosure statement that does one of the following:

(1) Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning more than 10% of its stock;

any member or owner in a joint venture or limited liability corporation (LLC);

all partners in a partnership or limited liability partnership (LLP); and

any corporate member, if the party is any other unincorporated association; or

(2) State that there “is no parent, shareholder, member, or partner to identify as required by LCR 7.1(a)(1).[”] LCR 7.1(a).

Full disclosure is critical to a proper disqualification analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 455. But many of the Defendants' corporate disclosure statements fail to adhere to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(1) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(a). The following table identifies such parties and their corresponding disclosure statement deficiencies:

As to disclosures by LLCs stating that they are wholly owned by another entity without otherwise identifying LLC members, the Court declines to scour differing state laws regarding whether LLCs may have members that are not owners. See, e.g., Plug Power Inc. v. Worthington Indus., Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00946 (BKS/TWD), 2022 WL 252104, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2022) (listing cases).

Party

Deficiencies

Gardner Denver Nash LLC (Dkt. No. 18)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

Lamons Gasket Company (Dkt. No. 23)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

Spirax Sarco, Inc. (Dkt. No. 24)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

Henry Pratt Company, LLC (Dkt. No. 44)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

Sequoia Ventures Inc. and Bechtel Corporation Dkt. No. 46)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of either of

their stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

ITT LLC (Dkt. No. 54)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

Grinnell LLC (Dkt. No. 56)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

Flowserve US, Inc. (Dkt. No. 62)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, fails to identify that corporation

Clyde Union, Inc. (Dkt. No. 67)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation other than Clyde Union (US), Inc. owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

Parsons Government Services, Inc. (Dkt. No. 70)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

WestRock Longview, LLC (Dkt. No. 82)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

Fisher Controls International LLC (Dkt. No. 86)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC or state that there are none

AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc. (Dkt. No. 100)

Fails to indicate whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

Metalclad Insulation LLC (Dkt. No. 103)

Fails to identify member(s) of the owner LLC

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC (Dkt. No. 107)

Fails to identify member(s) of the LLC

Milton R. and Co, LLC (Dkt. No. 116)

Fails to identify member(s) of the owner LLC

Ecodyne Corporation (Dkt. No. 119)

Fails to identify whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock and, if so, to identify that corporation

3M Company

No corporate disclosure statement filed

The corporate disclosure statement avers that “no parent corporation or publically held company owns 10% or more of Bechtel Group, Inc.'s stock,” Dkt. No. 46 at 1, but it does not address whether any publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of the Defendant entities, Sequoia Ventures Inc. and Bechtel Corporation.

The above-listed defendants shall have 10 days from the date of this Order to cure the identified deficiencies by filing amended corporate disclosure statements. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

The Court further observes that several defendants have not yet appeared or filed corporate disclosure statements. Those parties should diligently review this Order and the mistakes of their co-defendants before filing their disclosure statements.


Summaries of

Monlux v. 3M Co.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jul 31, 2024
2:24-cv-00912-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 31, 2024)
Case details for

Monlux v. 3M Co.

Case Details

Full title:ELAINE M. MONLUX, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jul 31, 2024

Citations

2:24-cv-00912-LK (W.D. Wash. Jul. 31, 2024)