Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06046/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06046-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2741

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the Giglio and Hardeman actions listed on Schedule A move

under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District

of Illinois. This litigation consists of twenty-one actions pending in fourteen districts, as listed on

Schedule A. The actions allege that Roundup, a widely used glyphosate-based herbicide

manufactured byMonsantoCompany, can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto failed

to warn consumers and regulators about the alleged risks of Roundup. Since the filing of the motion,

the parties have notified the Panel of another sixteen related actions pending in twelve districts.1

All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but suggest different transferee districts. 

Plaintiffs in three actions and a potential tag-along action support centralization in the Southern

District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in another three actions propose centralization in the Central District

of California. Plaintiffs in one action suggest centralization in the Southern District of Illinois, the

Central District of California, or the Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs in five actions suggest

instead centralization in the District of Hawaii. Plaintiff in one action does not oppose the Southern

District of Illinois, but suggests that the Eastern District of Louisiana is a more appropriate transferee

district. Finally, plaintiff in one potential tag-along action suggests centralization in the Northern

District of Illinois. Various plaintiffs alternatively support the Central District of California, the

District of Hawaii, or the Southern District of Illinois. 

Defendant Monsanto Company opposes centralization. Should the Panel centralize this

litigation over Monsanto’s objections, it alternativelyproposes centralization in theNorthernDistrict

of California, the Southern District of California, or the Southern District of Florida. Monsanto’s

primaryarguments against centralization are that: (1) individualized facts concerning each plaintiff’s

case, such as the nature of plaintiff’s exposure, the formulation of Roundup to which plaintiff was

exposed, and the specific type of non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma plaintiff developed, will predominate

over common factual issues; and (2) informal coordination and cooperation among the involved

parties and courts are preferable to centralization. We are not persuaded by either argument.

There undoubtedlyare some individualized factual issues presented bythese actions, but they

do not negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization. Regardless of the particular formulation

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 1

7.1, and 7.2.

Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 1 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 5 Case MDL No. 2741 Document 57 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 5

I hereby certify that the annexed 

instrument is a true and correct copy 

of the original on file in my office.

 ATTEST:

 RICHARD W. WIEKING

 Clerk, U.S. District Court

 Northern District of California

 

 by: 

 Deputy Clerk

 Date: 

 

04 October 2016

Case 3:16-cv-06046-VC Document 108 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 5
-2-

of Roundup at issue (all of which employ glyphosate as the active ingredient), or the nature of

plaintiff’s exposure to glyphosate, all the actions entail an overarching query—whether glyphosate

causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in persons exposed to it while using Roundup. Monsanto itself

implicitly acknowledges the predominance of this common question as it has moved in a number

of the underlying actions to bifurcate discovery to address general causation issues before plaintiffspecific ones. In any event, almost all personal injury litigation involves plaintiff-specific questions

of causation and damages. Those differences are not an impediment to centralization when common

questions of fact are multiple and complex, as they are here. See In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods.

Liab. Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1402, 1404 (J.P.M.L. 2014). When discovery and other pretrial

proceedings related to the common issues have been completed, the transferee judge may suggest

Section 1407 remand of the actions to their transferor courts for more individual discovery and trial,

if necessary. See In re Darvocet, Darvon &Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1379,

1381 (J.P.M.L. 2011). 

Turning to Monsanto’s second argument, we conclude that informal coordination among the

involved courts and counsel is not practicable in this instance. Including the potential tag-along

actions, there are now thirty-seven actions pending in twenty-one districts. More than ten different

law firms represent plaintiffs in these actions, which are spread across the country. Even if no

additional actions are filed, the present number of cases, districts, and involved counsel, as well as

the complexity of the issues presented, warrants centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve

common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve

the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this

litigation. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto’s

Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using

Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate

in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine

(POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general

causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. 

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including

with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the

parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. 

We select the Northern District of California as the appropriate transferee district for this

litigation. Two of the earliest-filed and most procedurally advanced actions are pending in this

district. The Northern District of California is both convenient and easily accessible for all parties,

and we are convinced that the district has the necessary judicial resources and expertise to efficiently

manage this litigation. Furthermore, centralization in this district allows us to assign this litigation

to the Honorable Vince Chhabria, a skilled jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over

an MDL. 

Case 3:16-cv-06046-VC Document 108 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 5 Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 1 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 5 Case MDL No. 2741 Document 57 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 5
-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside

the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated

pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________

 Sarah S. Vance 

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:16-cv-06046-VC Document 108 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 5 Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 1 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 5 Case MDL No. 2741 Document 57 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 5
IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2741

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

MCCALL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01609

HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-01988

JOHANSING v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:16-05035

SANDERS, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:16-00726

Eastern District of California

MENDOZA v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-00406

Northern District of California

HARDEMAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00525

STEVICK, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:16-02341

Southern District of California

GIGLIO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-02279

Southern District of Florida

RUIZ, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 9:16-80539

District of Hawaii

SHEPPARD, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-00043

JOHNSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-00075

Northern District of Illinois

GIBBS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-07588

Southern District of Illinois

BRIDGEMAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:16-00812

HARRIS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00823

PATTERSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:16-00825

Case 3:16-cv-06046-VC Document 108 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 5 Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 1 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 5 Case MDL No. 2741 Document 57 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 5
-A2-

Western District of Kentucky

MEANS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:16-00112

Eastern District of Louisiana

WORK v. RAGAN AND MASSEY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-07491

District of Massachusetts

SCHEFFER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-11489

Northern District of Mississippi

COUEY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:16-00149

District of Nebraska

DOMINA, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:16-03074

Western District of Wisconsin

PORATH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:16-00518

Case 3:16-cv-06046-VC Document 108 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 5 Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 1 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 5 Case MDL No. 2741 Document 57 Filed 10/03/16 Page 5 of 5