1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DIVISION

RAY LEE,

 Plaintiff

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY,

 Defendant.

Case No.: 4:16-cv-2153

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Ray Lee (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby brings 

this Complaint for damages against Defendant Monsanto Company and alleges the following: 

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate

result of Defendant’s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,

development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,

labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup®, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

2. Plaintiff maintains that Roundup® and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to 

human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper 

warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. 

3. Plaintiff’s injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims 

across the country, were avoidable. 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 36
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant and this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant. 

Defendant is either incorporated and/or has its principal place of business outside of the state in 

which the Plaintiff resides.

5. The amount in controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant exceeds $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and cost.

6. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that 

Defendant conducts business here and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. 

Furthermore, Defendant sells, markets, and/or distributes Roundup® within the District of 

Missouri. Also, a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these claims 

occurred within this district. 

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, Ray Lee, is a natural person and is a resident and citizen of Story 

County, Iowa. Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to 

Roundup® (“Roundup”) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant

polyethoxylated tallow amine (“POEA”). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to

Roundup, Plaintiff developed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

9. “Roundup” refers to all formulations of Defendant’s Roundup products, including, 

but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom 

Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, 

Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 36
3

and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II 

Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup 

Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate 

Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup 

Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Readyto-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra 

Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & 

Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & 

Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup 

Weed & Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry 

Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

10. Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY is a Delaware corporation, Missouri 

Secretary of State Charter No. F00488018, with a principle place of business in St. Louis, 

Missouri. 

11. Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY is collectively referred to as “Monsanto” 

or “Defendant.” 

12. Defendant advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the State of 

Missouri.

13. Defendant transacted and conducted business within the State of Missouri that 

relates to the allegations in this Complaint.

14. Defendant derived substantial revenue from goods and products used in the State 

of Missouri. 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 36
4

15. Defendant expected or should have expected its acts to have consequences within 

the State of Missouri, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.

16. Defendant engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, 

testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling Roundup.

17. Defendant is authorized to do business in Missouri and derive substantial income 

from doing business in this state.

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant purposefully availed itself of the 

privilege of conducting activities with the State of Missouri, thus invoking the benefits and 

protections of its laws.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant did design, sell, advertise, manufacture 

and/or distribute Roundup, with full knowledge of its dangerous and defective nature.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. At all relevant times, Defendant was in the business of, and did, design, research, 

manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, distribute, and/or has acquired and is

responsible for the commercial herbicide Roundup.

21. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. 

Louis, Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. 

22. Defendant discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate during the 1970’s 

and subsequently began to design, research, manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate based 

“Roundup” as a broad spectrum herbicide.

23. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

24. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known 

to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 4 of 36
5

25. Glyphosate is a “non-selective” herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based 

only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-

phosphate synthase, known as EPSP synthase.

26. Glyphosate inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate 

synthase that interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the accumulation of 

shikimic acid in plant tissue and ultimately plant death.

27. Sprayed as a liquid, plants absorb glyphosate directly through their leaves, stems, 

and roots, and detectable quantities accumulate in the plant tissues.

28. Each year, approximately 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on crops, 

commercial nurseries, suburban lawns, parks, and golf courses. This increase in use has been 

driven largely by the proliferation of genetically engineered crops, crops specifically tailored to 

resist the activity of glyphosate.

29. Defendant is intimately involved in the development, design, manufacture, 

marketing, sale, and/or distribution of genetically modified (“GMO”) crops, many of which are 

marketed as being resistant to Roundup i.e., “Roundup Ready®.” As of 2009, Defendant was the 

world’s leading producer of seeds designed to be Roundup Ready®. In 2010, an estimated 70% 

of corn and cotton, and 90% of soybean fields in the United States contained Roundup Ready®

seeds.

30. The original Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, was 

introduced in 1974. Today, glyphosate products are among the world’s most widely used 

herbicides.1

31. For nearly 40 years, consumers, farmers, and the public have used Roundup, 

unaware of its carcinogenic properties.

 1 Backgrounder, History of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Herbicides, June 2005. 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 5 of 36
6

REGISTRATION OF HERBICIDES UNDER FEDERAL LAW

32. The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup, 

are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7. 

U.S.C. § 136 et seq. FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (“EPA) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described by FIFRA 

7 U.S.C. 136a(a).

33. The EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other requirements, a 

variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other 

potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by 

the EPA, however, is not an assurance or finding of safety. The determination the EPA makes in 

registering or re-registering a product is not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the 

product in accordance with its label directions “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse 

effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(a)(c)(5)(D).

34. FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any 

unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and 

environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus 

requires the EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration should be 

granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.

35. The EPA and the State of Missouri registered Roundup for distribution, sale, and 

manufacture in the United States and the State of Missouri.

36. FIFRA generally requires that the registrant, Monsanto, conduct health and safety 

testing of pesticide products. The government is not required, nor is it able, to perform the 

product tests that are required of the manufacturer.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 6 of 36
7

37. The evaluation of each pesticide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is 

completed at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of a 

pesticide has changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all pesticide 

products through a Congressionally-mandated process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a1. In order to reevaluate these pesticides, the EPA demands the completion of additional tests 

and the submission of data for the EPA’s review and evaluation.

38. In the case of glyphosate and Roundup, the EPA had planned on releasing its 

preliminary risk assessment – in relation to the registration process – no later than July 2015. The 

EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but delayed releasing the assessment 

pending further review in light of the World Health Organization’s March 24, 2015 finding that 

glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” as demonstrated by the mechanistic evidence of 

carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.

MONSANTO’S FALSE REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING 

THE SAFETY OF ROUNDUP®

39. In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against 

Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products. Specifically, the 

lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based 

herbicides, including Roundup, were “safer than table salt” and "practically non-toxic" to 

mammals, birds, and fish. Among the representations the NYAG found deceptive and misleading 

about the human and environmental safety of Roundup are the following:

a) Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is 

biodegradable. It won't build up in the soil so you can use 

Roundup with confidence along customers' driveways, 

sidewalks and fences ...

b) And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won't build 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 7 of 36
8

up in the soil. That will give you the environmental confidence 

you need to use Roundup everywhere you've got a weed, brush, 

edging or trimming problem.

c) Roundup biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.

d) Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put 

it. That means there's no washing or leaching to harm customers' 

shrubs or other desirable vegetation.

e) This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It 

... stays where you apply it.

f) You can apply Accord with “confidence because it will stay 

where you put it” it bonds tightly to soil particles, preventing 

leaching. Then, soon after application, soil microorganisms 

biodegrade Accord into natural products.

g) Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute 

oral ingestion.

h) h) Glyphosate's safety margin is much greater than required. It 

has over a 1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold 

safety margin for workers who manufacture it or use it.

i) You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They 

carry a toxicity category rating of 'practically non-toxic' as it 

pertains to mammals, birds and fish.

j) j) “Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and 

breaks down into natural material.” This ad depicts a person 

with his head in the ground and a pet dog standing in an area 

which has been treated with Roundup.2

40. On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance 

with NYAG, in which Monsanto agreed, among other things, “to cease and desist from 

publishing or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that represent, directly or by 

implication” that:

a) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any 

 2 Attorney General of the State of New York, In the Matter of Monsanto Company, Assurance of Discontinuance 

Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(15) (Nov. 1996).

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 8 of 36
9

component thereof are safe, non-toxic, harmless or free 

from risk.

b) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any 

component thereof manufactured, formulated, distributed 

or sold by Monsanto are biodegradable

c) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any 

component thereof stay where they are applied under all 

circumstances and will not move through the 

environment by any means.

d) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any 

component thereof are "good" for the environment or are 

"known for their environmental characteristics."

e) glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any 

component thereof are safer or less toxic than common 

consumer products other than herbicides;

f) its glyphosate-containing products or any component 

thereof might be classified as "practically non-toxic.

41. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state other than 

New York, and on information and belief still has not done so today.

42. In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that Monsanto had not told the truth about 

the safety of Roundup. The French court affirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely 

advertised its herbicide Roundup as “biodegradable” and that it “left the soil clean.”3

EVIDENCE OF CARCINOGENICITY IN ROUNDUP

43. As early as the 1980’s Monsanto was aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic 

properties.

44. On March 4, 1985, a group of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 

Toxicology Branch published a memorandum classifying glyphosate as a Category C 

 3 Monsanto Guilty in ‘False Ad’ Row, BBC, Oct. 15, 2009, available at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 9 of 36
10

oncogene.

4 Category C oncogenes are possible human carcinogens with limited evidence of 

carcinogenicity. 

45. In 1986, the EPA issued a Registration Standard for glyphosate (NTIS PB87-

103214). The Registration standard required additional phytotoxicity, environmental fate, 

toxicology, product chemistry, and residue chemistry studies. All of the data required was 

submitted and reviewed and/or waived.5

46. In October 1991 the EPA published a Memorandum entitled “Second Peer 

Review of Glyphosate.” The memorandum changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E 

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Two peer review committee members did not 

concur with the conclusions of the committee and one member refused to sign.6

47. In addition to the toxicity of the active molecule, many studies support the 

hypothesis that glyphosate formulations found in Defendant’s Roundup products are more 

dangerous and toxic than glyphosate alone.7 As early as 1991 evidence existed demonstrating 

that glyphosate formulations were significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone. 8

48. In 2002, Julie Marc published a study entitled “Pesticide Roundup Provokes Cell 

Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B Activation.”

49. The study found that Defendant’s Roundup caused delays in the cell cycles of sea 

urchins, while the same concentrations of glyphosate alone proved ineffective and did not alter 

cell cycles.

50. In 2004, Julie Marc published a study entitled “Glyphosate-based pesticides 

 4 Consensus Review of Glyphosate, Casewell No. 661A. March 4, 1985. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

5 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf

6 Second Peer Review of Glyphosate, CAS No. 1071-83-6. October 30, 1881. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

7 Martinez et al. 2007; Benachour 2009; Gasnier et al. 2010; Peixoto 2005; Marc 2004 8 Martinez et al 1991

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 10 of 36
11

affect cell cycle regulation.” The study demonstrated a molecular link between glyphosate-based 

products and cell cycle dysregulation. 

51. The study noted that “cell-cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of tumor cells and 

human cancer. Failure in the cell-cycle checkpoints leads to genomic instability and subsequent 

development of cancers from the initial affected cell.” Further, “[s]ince cell cycle disorders such 

as cancer result from dysfunction of unique cell, it was of interest to evaluate the threshold dose 

of glyphosate affecting cells.”9

52. In 2005, Francisco Peixoto published a study showing that Roundup’s effects on 

rat liver mitochondria are much more toxic and harmful than the same concentrations of 

glyphosate alone.

53. The Peixoto study suggested that the harmful effects of Roundup on 

mitochondrial bioenergetics could not be exclusively attributed to glyphosate and could be the 

result of other chemicals, namely the surfactant POEA, or alternatively due to the possible 

synergy between glyphosate and Roundup formulation products.

54. In 2009, Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study examining 

the effects of Roundup and glyphosate on human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells.

55. The study used dilution levels of Roundup and glyphosate far below agricultural 

recommendations, corresponding with low levels of residues in food. The study concluded that 

supposed “inert” ingredients, and possibly POEA, change human cell permeability and amplify 

toxicity of glyphosate alone. The study further suggested that determinations of glyphosate 

toxicity should take into account the presence of adjuvants, or those chemicals used in the 

formulation of the complete pesticide. The study confirmed that the adjuvants in Roundup are 

not inert and that Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate.

 9 (Molinari, 2000; Stewart et al., 2003)

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 11 of 36
12

56. The results of these studies were confirmed in recently published peer-reviewed 

studies and were at all times available and/or known to Defendant.

57. Defendant knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than 

glyphosate alone and that safety studies on Roundup, Roundup’s adjuvants and “inert” 

ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA were necessary to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.

58. Defendant knew or should have known that tests limited to Roundup’s active 

ingredient glyphosate were insufficient to prove the safety of Roundup.

59. Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately test Roundup, Roundup’s 

adjuvants and “inert” ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from Roundup.

60. Rather than performing appropriate tests, Defendant relied upon flawed industrysupported studies designed to protect Defendant’s economic interests rather than Plaintiff and 

the consuming public.

61. Despite its knowledge that Roundup was considerably more dangerous than 

glyphosate alone, Defendant continued to promote Roundup as safe.

IARC CLASSIFICATION OF GLYPHOSATE

62. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) is the specialized

intergovernmental cancer agency the World Health Organization (“WHO”) of the United 

Nations tasked with conducting and coordinating research into the causes of cancer.

63. An IARC Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for IARC Monographs 

during 2015–2019 met in April 2014. Though nominations for the review were solicited, a 

substance must meet two criteria to be eligible for review by the IARC Monographs: there must 

already be some evidence of carcinogenicity of the substance, and there must be evidence that 

humans are exposed to the substance.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 12 of 36
13

64. IARC set glyphosate for review in 2015-2016. IARC uses five criteria for 

determining priority in reviewing chemicals. The substance must have a potential for direct 

impact on public health; scientific literature to support suspicion of carcinogenicity; evidence of 

significant human exposure; high public interest and/or potential to bring clarity to a 

controversial area and/or reduce public anxiety or concern; related agents similar to one given 

high priority by the above considerations. Data reviewed is sourced preferably from publicly 

accessible, peer-reviewed data.

65. On March 24, 2015, after its cumulative review of human, animal, and DNA 

studies for more than one (1) year, many of which have been in Defendant’s possession since as 

early as 1985, the IARC’s working group published its conclusion that the glyphosate contained 

in Defendant’s Roundup herbicide, is a Class 2A “probable carcinogen” as demonstrated by the 

mechanistic evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in 

animals. 

66. The IARC’s full Monograph was published on July 29, 2015 and established 

glyphosate as a class 2A probable carcinogen to humans. According to the authors glyphosate 

demonstrated sufficient mechanistic evidence (genotoxicity and oxidative stress) to warrant a 2A 

classification based on evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and animals.

67. The IARC Working Group found an increased risk between exposure to 

glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”) and several subtypes of NHL, and the 

increased risk continued after adjustment for other pesticides.

68. The IARC also found that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in 

human cells. 

EARLIER EVIDENCE OF GLYPHOSATE’S DANGER

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 13 of 36
14

69. Despite the new classification by the IARC, Defendant has had ample evidence of 

glyphosate and Roundup’s genotoxic properties for decades. 

70. Genotoxicity refers to chemical agents that are capable of damaging the DNA 

within a cell through genetic mutations, which is a process that is believed to lead to cancer.

71. In 1997, Chris Clements published “Genotoxicity of select herbicides in Rana 

catesbeiana tadpoles using the alkaline single-cell gel DNA electrophoresis (comet) assay.”

72. The study found that tadpoles exposed to Roundup showed significant DNA 

damage when compared with unexposed control animals. 

73. Both human and animal studies have shown that glyphosate and glyphosate-based 

formulations such as Roundup can induce oxidative stress.

74. Oxidative stress and associated chronic inflammation are believed to be involved 

in carcinogenesis.

75. The IARC Monograph notes that “[s]trong evidence exists that glyphosate, 

AMPA and glyphosate-based formulations can induce oxidative stress.”

76. In 2006 César Paz-y-Miño published a study examining DNA damage in human 

subjects exposed to glyphosate.

77. The study produced evidence of chromosomal damage in blood cells showing 

significantly greater damage after exposure to glyphosate than before in the same individuals, 

suggesting that the glyphosate formulation used during aerial spraying had a genotoxic effect on 

exposed individuals.

78. The IARC Monograph reflects the volume of evidence of glyphosate pesticides’ 

genotoxicity noting “[t]he evidence for genotoxicity caused by glyphosate-based formulations is 

strong.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 14 of 36
15

79. Despite knowledge to the contrary, Defendant maintains that there is no evidence 

that Roundup is genotoxic, that regulatory authorities and independent experts are in agreement 

that Roundup is not genotoxic, and that there is no evidence that Roundup is genotoxic.

80. In addition to glyphosate and Roundup’s genotoxic properties, Defendant has

long been aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties. 

81. Glyphosate and Roundup in particular have long been associated with 

carcinogenicity and the development of numerous forms of cancer, including, but not limited to, 

non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.

82. Defendant has known of this association since the early to mid-1980s and 

numerous human and animal studies have evidenced the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and/or 

Roundup.

83. In 1985 the EPA studied the effects of glyphosate in mice finding a dose related 

response in male mice linked to renal tubal adenomas, a rare tumor. The study concluded the 

glyphosate was oncogenic.

84. In 2003 Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson published the results of two case 

controlled studies on pesticides as a risk factor for NHL and hairy cell leukemia.

85. The study concluded that glyphosate had the most significant relationship to NHL 

among all herbicides studies with an increased odds ratio of 3.11.

86. In 2003 AJ De Roos published a study examining the pooled data of mid-western 

farmers, examining pesticides and herbicides as risk factors for NHL.

87. The study, which controlled for potential confounders, found a relationship 

between increased NHL incidence and glyphosate.

88. In 2008 Mikael Eriksson published a population based case-control study of 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 15 of 36
16

exposure to various pesticides as a risk factor for NHL.

89. This strengthened previous associations between glyphosate and NHL.

90. In spite of this knowledge, Defendant continued to issue broad and sweeping 

statements suggesting that Roundup was, and is, safer than ordinary household items such as 

table salt, despite a lack of scientific support for the accuracy and validity of these statements 

and, in fact, voluminous evidence to the contrary.

91. Upon information and belief, these statements and representations have been 

made with the intent of inducing Plaintiff, the agricultural community, and the public at large to 

purchase and increase the use of Defendant’s Roundup for Defendant’s pecuniary gain, and in 

fact, did induce Plaintiff to use Roundup. 

92. Defendant made these statements with complete disregard and reckless 

indifference to the safety of Plaintiff and the general public. 

93. Notwithstanding Defendant’s representations, scientific evidence has established 

a clear association between glyphosate and genotoxicity, inflammation, and an increased risk of 

many cancers, including, but not limited to, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.

94. Defendant knew or should have known that glyphosate is associated with an 

increased risk of developing cancer, including, but not limited to, NHL, Multiple Myeloma, and 

soft tissue sarcomas.

95. Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn Plaintiff of the 

serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or 

Roundup, including, but not limited to, the risk of developing NHL, as well as other severe and 

personal injuries, which are permanent and/or long-lasting in nature, cause significant physical 

pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and the need for medical treatment, 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 16 of 36
17

monitoring and/or medications.

96. Despite the IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a class 2A probable 

carcinogen, Defendant continues to maintain that glyphosate and/or Roundup is safe, noncarcinogenic, non-genotoxic, and falsely warrant to users and the general public that independent 

experts and regulatory agencies agree that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity or genotoxicity 

in glyphosate and Roundup.

97. Defendant has claimed and continue to claim that Roundup is safe, noncarcinogenic, and non-genotoxic. These misrepresentations are consistent with Defendant’s

cavalier approach to investigating and ensuring the safety of its products, the safety of the public 

at large, and the safety of Plaintiff.

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD UNDERLYING THE SAFETY DETERMINATIONS OF 

GLYPHOSATE

98. After the EPA’s 1985 classification of glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to 

humans (Group C), Monsanto exerted pressure upon the EPA to change its classification.

99. This culminated in the EPA’s reclassification of glyphosate to Group E, which 

was based upon evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.

100. In so classifying, the EPA stated that “[i]t should be emphasized, however, that 

designation of an agent in Group E is based on the available evidence at the time of evaluation 

and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen 

under any circumstances.”

101. On two occasions, the EPA found that laboratories hired by Monsanto to test the 

toxicity of its Roundup products for registration purposes committed scientific fraud. 

102. In the first instance, Monsanto hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (“IBT”) to 

perform and evaluate pesticide toxicology studies relating to Roundup. IBT performed 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 17 of 36
18

approximately 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products, including 11 of the 19 

chronic toxicology studies needed to register Roundup with the EPA.

103. In 1976, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an inspection of 

IBT and discovered discrepancies between the raw data and the final report relating to 

toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently audited IBT and determined that the 

toxicology studies conducted for Roundup were invalid. An EPA reviewer stated, after finding 

“routine falsification of data” at IBT, that it was “hard to believe the scientific integrity of the 

studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits.”

104. Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983.

105. In the second incident, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories (“Craven”) in 1990 

to perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including several studies on Roundup.

106. In March of 1991, the EPA announced that it was investigating Craven for 

“allegedly falsifying test data used by chemical firms to win EPA approval of pesticides.”

107. The investigation lead to the indictments of the laboratory owner and a handful of 

employees.

MONSANTO’S CONTINUING DISREGARD FOR THE 

SAFETY OF PLAINTIFF AND THE PUBLIC

108. Monsanto claims on its website that “[r]egulatory authorities and independent 

experts around the world have reviewed numerous long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity 

studies and agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup 

brand herbicides and other glyphosate-based herbicides, causes cancer, even at very high doses, 

and that it is not genotoxic.”10

109. Ironically, the primary source for this statement is a 1986 report by the WHO, the 

 10 Backgrounder - Glyphosate: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity. Updated November 2014. (downloaded October 9 

2015)

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 18 of 36
19

same organization that now considers glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen.

110. Glyphosate, and Defendant’s Roundup products in particular, have long been 

associated with serious side effects and many regulatory agencies around the globe have banned 

or are currently banning the use of glyphosate herbicide products.

111. Defendant’s statements proclaiming the safety of Roundup and disregarding its 

dangers misled Plaintiff.

112. Despite Defendant’s knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated 

risk of developing cancer, Defendant’s promotional campaigns focused on Roundup’s purported 

“safety profile.”

113. Defendant’s failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (1) Plaintiff using and 

being exposed to glyphosate instead of using another acceptable and safe method of controlling 

unwanted weeds and pests; and (2) scientists and physicians failing to warn and instruct 

consumers about the risk of cancer, including NHL, and other injuries associated with Roundup.

114. Defendant failed to seek modification of the labeling of Roundup to include 

relevant information regarding the risks and dangers associated with Roundup exposure.

115. The failure of Defendant to appropriately warn and inform the EPA has resulted 

in inadequate warnings in safety information presented directly to users and consumers.

116. The failure of Defendant to appropriately warn and inform the EPA has resulted 

in the absence of warning or caution statements that are adequate to protect health and the 

environment.

117. The failure of Defendant to appropriately warn and inform the EPA has resulted 

in the directions for use that are not adequate to protect health and the environment.

118. By reason of the foregoing acts and omissions, Plaintiff seeks compensatory 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 19 of 36
20

damages as a result of Plaintiff’s use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a 

substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer, specifically NHL, and 

Plaintiff suffered severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, 

physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life.

119. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is severely and permanently injured.

120. By reason of the foregoing acts and omissions, Plaintiff has endured and, in some 

categories continues to suffer, emotional and mental anguish, medical expenses, and other 

economic and non-economic damages, as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ROUNDUP

121. Plaintiff used Roundup beginning in approximately 2004.

122. For years, Plaintiff sprayed Roundup on a regular basis. Plaintiff followed all 

safety and precautionary warnings during the course of use.

123. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. The 

development of Plaintiff’s Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by 

exposure to Defendant’s Roundup products.

124. As a result of his injury, Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and noneconomic damages. 

EQUITABLE TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein.

126. The running of any statute of limitations has been tolled by reason of Defendant’s

fraudulent concealment. Defendant, through its affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, 

actively concealed from Plaintiff the true risks associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 20 of 36
21

127. At all relevant times, Defendant has maintained that Roundup is safe, non-toxic, 

and non-carcinogenic.

128. Indeed, even as of July 2016, Defendant continues to represent to the public that 

“Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world have reviewed numerous 

long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies and agree that there is no evidence that 

glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand herbicides and other glyphosate-based 

herbicides, causes cancer, even at very high doses, and that it is not genotoxic” (emphasis 

added).

11

129. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff was unaware, and could not 

reasonably know or have learned through reasonable diligence that Roundup and/or glyphosate 

contact, exposed Plaintiff to the risks alleged herein and that those risks were the direct and 

proximate result of Defendant’s acts and omissions.

130. Furthermore, Defendant is estopped from relying on any statute of limitations 

because of its fraudulent concealment of the true character, quality and nature of Roundup. 

Defendant was under a duty to disclose the true character, quality, and nature of Roundup

because this was non-public information over which Defendant had and continues to have 

exclusive control, and because Defendant knew that this information was not available to 

Plaintiff or to distributors of Roundup. In addition, Defendant is estopped from relying on any 

statute of limitations because of its intentional concealment of these facts.

131. Plaintiff had no knowledge that Defendant was engaged in the wrongdoing 

alleged herein. Because of the fraudulent acts of concealment of wrongdoing by Defendant, 

Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the wrongdoing at any time prior. Also, the 

 11 Backgrounder - Glyphosate: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity. Updated November 2014. (downloaded October 9 

2015)

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 21 of 36
22

economics of this fraud should be considered. Defendant had the ability to and did spend 

enormous amounts of money in furtherance of its purpose of marketing, promoting and/or 

distributing a profitable herbicide, notwithstanding the known or reasonably known risks. 

Plaintiff and medical professionals could not have afforded and could not have possibly 

conducted studies to determine the nature, extent, and identity of related health risks, and were 

forced to rely on only the Defendant’s representations. Accordingly, Defendant is precluded by 

the discovery rule and/or the doctrine of fraudulent concealment from relying upon any statute of 

limitations.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(NEGLIGENCE)

132. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation of this 

Complaint contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs inclusive, with the same force and 

effect as if more fully set forth herein.

133. Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the designing, researching, 

testing, manufacturing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, sale, and/or distribution of 

Roundup into the stream of commerce, including a duty to assure that the product would not 

cause users to suffer unreasonable, dangerous side effects.

134. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the designing, researching, testing,

manufacturing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, sale, testing, quality assurance, 

quality control, and/or distribution of Roundup into interstate commerce in that Defendant knew 

or should have known that using Roundup created a high risk of unreasonable, dangerous side 

effects, including, but not limited to, the development of NHL, as well as other severe and 

personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 22 of 36
23

including diminished enjoyment of life, as well as need for lifelong medical treatment, 

monitoring, and/or medications.

135. The negligence by the Defendant, its agents, servants, and/or employees, included 

but was not limited to the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Manufacturing, producing, promoting, formulating, creating, and/or designing 

Roundup without thoroughly testing it;

b. Failing to test Roundup and/or failing to adequately, sufficiently, and properly test 

Roundup;

c. Not conducting sufficient testing programs to determine whether or not Roundup

was safe for use; in that Defendant herein knew or should have known that 

Roundup was unsafe and unfit for use by reason of the dangers to its users;

d. Not conducting sufficient testing programs and studies to determine Roundup’s 

carcinogenic properties even after Defendant had knowledge that Roundup is, 

was, or could be carcinogenic;

e. Failing to conduct sufficient testing programs to determine the safety of “inert” 

ingredients and/or adjuvants contained within Roundup, and the propensity of 

these ingredients to render Roundup toxic, increase the toxicity of Roundup, 

whether these ingredients are carcinogenic, magnify the carcinogenic properties 

of Roundup, and whether or not “inert” ingredients and/or adjuvants were safe for 

use; 

f. Negligently failing to adequately and correctly warn the Plaintiff, the public, the 

medical and agricultural professions, and the EPA of the dangers of Roundup;

g. Negligently failing to petition the EPA to strengthen the warnings associated with 

Roundup;

h. Failing to provide adequate cautions and warnings to protect the health of users, 

handlers, applicators, and persons who would reasonably and foreseeably come 

into contact with Roundup;

i. Negligently marketing, advertising, and recommending the use of Roundup

without sufficient knowledge as to its dangerous propensities;

j. Negligently representing that Roundup was safe for use for its intended purpose, 

and/or that Roundup was safer than ordinary and common items such as table salt, 

when, in fact, it was unsafe;

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 23 of 36
24

k. Negligently representing that Roundup had equivalent safety and efficacy as other 

forms of herbicides;

l. Negligently designing Roundup in a manner, which was dangerous to its users;

m. Negligently manufacturing Roundup in a manner, which was dangerous to its 

users;

n. Negligently producing Roundup in a manner, which was dangerous to its users;

o. Negligently formulating Roundup in a manner, which was dangerous to its users;

p. Concealing information from the Plaintiff while knowing that Roundup was 

unsafe, dangerous, and/or non-conforming with EPA regulations; and

q. Improperly concealing and/or misrepresenting information from the Plaintiff, 

scientific and medical professionals, and/or the EPA, concerning the severity of 

risks and dangers of Roundup compared to other forms of herbicides.

r. Negligently selling Roundup with a false and misleading label.

136. Defendant under-reported, underestimated, and downplayed the serious dangers 

of Roundup.

137. Defendant negligently and deceptively compared the safety risks and/or dangers 

of Roundup with common everyday foods such as table salt, and other forms of herbicides.

138. Defendant was negligent and/or violated Missouri law in the designing, 

researching, supplying, manufacturing, promoting, packaging, distributing, testing, advertising, 

warning, marketing, and selling of Roundup in that they:

a. Failed to use ordinary care in designing and manufacturing Roundup so as to 

avoid the aforementioned risks to individuals when Roundup was used as an 

herbicide;

b. Failed to accompany its product with proper and/or accurate warnings regarding 

all possible adverse side effects associated with the use of Roundup;

c. Failed to accompany its product with proper warnings regarding all possible 

adverse side effects concerning the failure and/or malfunction of Roundup;

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 24 of 36
25

d. Failed to accompany its product with accurate warnings regarding the risks of all 

possible adverse side effects concerning Roundup;

e. Failed to warn Plaintiff of the severity and duration of such adverse effects, as the 

warnings given did not accurately reflect the symptoms, or severity of the side 

effects including, but not limited to, the development of NHL;

f. Failed to conduct adequate testing, clinical testing and post-marketing 

surveillance to determine the safety of Roundup;

g. Failed to conduct adequate testing, clinical testing, and post-marketing 

surveillance to determine the safety of Roundup’s “inert” ingredients and/or 

adjuvants;

h. Negligently misrepresented the evidence of Roundup’s genotoxicity and 

carcinogenicity;

i. Was otherwise careless and/or negligent.

139. Despite the fact that Defendant knew or should have known that Roundup caused, 

or could cause, unreasonably dangerous side effects, Defendant continued and continues to 

market, manufacture, distribute, and/or sell Roundup to consumers, including the Plaintiff.

140. Defendant knew or should have known that consumers such as the Plaintiff would 

foreseeably suffer injury as a result of Defendant’s failure to exercise ordinary care, as set forth 

above. 

141. Defendant’s violations of law and/or negligence were the proximate cause of 

Plaintiff’s injuries, harm and economic loss, which Plaintiff suffered and/or will continue to 

suffer.

142. As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions, the Plaintiff suffered from serious 

and dangerous side effects including, but not limited to, NHL, as well as other severe and 

personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, 

diminished enjoyment of life, and financial expenses for hospitalization and medical care. 

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 25 of 36
26

Further, Plaintiff suffered life-threatening NHL, and severe personal injuries, which are 

permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished 

enjoyment of life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor for compensatory damages, together with interest, costs herein incurred, 

attorneys’ fees and all relief as this Court deems just and proper. Additionally, Plaintiff demands 

a jury trial on all issues contained herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT)

143. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and, re-alleges each and every allegation of this 

Complaint contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs inclusive, with the same force and 

effect as if more fully set forth herein.

144. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant designed, researched, manufactured,

tested, advertised, promoted, sold, distributed Roundup as hereinabove described that was used 

by the Plaintiff.

145. Defendant’s Roundup was expected to and did reach the usual consumers, 

handlers, and persons coming into contact with said product without substantial change in the 

condition in which it was produced, manufactured, sold, distributed, and marketed by the 

Defendant.

146. At those times, Roundup was in an unsafe, defective, and inherently dangerous 

condition, which was dangerous to users, and in particular, the Plaintiff herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 26 of 36
27

147. The Roundup designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, sold, and distributed by Defendant was defective in design or formulation in that, 

when it left the hands of the manufacturer and/or suppliers, the foreseeable risks exceeded the 

benefits associated with the design or formulation of Roundup.

148. The Roundup designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, sold, and distributed by Defendant was defective in design and/or formulation, in that, 

when it left the hands of the Defendant manufacturers and/or suppliers, it was unreasonably 

dangerous, unreasonably dangerous in normal use, and it was more dangerous than an ordinary 

consumer would expect.

149. At all times herein mentioned, Roundup was in a defective condition and unsafe, 

and Defendant knew or had reason to know that said product was defective and unsafe, 

especially when used in the form and manner as provided by the Defendant. In particular, 

Defendant’s Roundup was defective in the following ways:

a. When placed in the stream of commerce, Defendant’s Roundup products were 

defective in design and formulation and, consequently, dangerous to an extent 

beyond that which an ordinary consumer would anticipate.

b. When placed in the stream of commerce, Defendant’s Roundup products were 

unreasonably dangerous in that they were hazardous and posed a grave risk of 

cancer and other serious illnesses when used in a reasonably anticipated manner.

c. When placed in the stream of commerce, Defendant’s Roundup products 

contained unreasonably dangerous design defects and were not reasonably safe 

when used in a reasonably anticipated manner.

d. Defendant did not sufficiently test, investigate, or study its Roundup products.

e. Exposure to Roundup presents a risk of harmful side effects that outweigh any 

potential utility stemming from the use of the herbicide.

f. Defendant new or should have known at the time of marketing its Roundup 

products that exposure to Roundup and could result in cancer and other severe 

illnesses and injuries.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 27 of 36
28

g. Defendant did not conduct adequate post-marketing surveillance of its Roundup 

products.

150. Defendant knew, or should have known that at all times herein mentioned its 

Roundup was in a defective condition, and was and is inherently dangerous and unsafe.

151. Plaintiff was exposed to Defendant’s Roundup, as described above, without 

knowledge of Roundup’s dangerous characteristics.

152. At the time of the Plaintiff’s use of and exposure to Roundup, Roundup was being 

used for the purposes and in a manner normally intended, as a broad-spectrum herbicide.

153. Defendant with this knowledge voluntarily designed its Roundup with a 

dangerous condition for use by the public, and in particular the Plaintiff.

154. Defendant had a duty to create a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for 

its normal, intended use.

155. Defendant created a product that was and is unreasonably dangerous for its 

normal, intended use.

156. Defendant marketed and promoted a product in such a manner so as to make it 

inherently defective as the product downplayed its suspected, probable, and established health 

risks inherent with its normal, intended use.

157. The Roundup designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, sold, and distributed by Defendant was manufactured defectively in that Roundup left 

the hands of Defendant in a defective condition and was unreasonably dangerous to its intended 

users.

158. The Roundup designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, sold, and distributed by Defendant reached its intended users in the same defective and 

unreasonably dangerous condition in which the Defendant’s Roundup was manufactured.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 28 of 36
29

159. Defendant designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, 

marketed, sold, and distributed a defective product, which created an unreasonable risk to the 

health of consumers and to the Plaintiff in particular, and Defendant is therefore strictly liable for 

the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.

160. The Plaintiff could not, by the exercise of reasonable care, have discovered 

Roundup’s defects herein mentioned or perceived its danger.

161. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant has become strictly liable to the 

Plaintiff for the manufacturing, marketing, promoting, distribution, and selling of a defective 

product, Roundup.

162. Defendant’s defective design, of Roundup amounts to willful, wanton, and/or 

reckless conduct by Defendant.

163. Defects in Defendant’s Roundup were the cause or a substantial factor in causing 

Plaintiff’s injuries.

164. As a result of the foregoing acts and omission, the Plaintiff developed NHL, and

suffered severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain 

and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, and financial expenses for 

hospitalization and medical care.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor for compensatory, together with interest, costs herein incurred, attorneys’ fees 

and all relief as this Court deems just and proper. Additionally, Plaintiff demands a jury trial on 

all issues contained herein.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN)

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 29 of 36
30

165. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation of this 

Complaint contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs inclusive, with the same force and 

effect as if more fully set forth herein.

166. Defendant has engaged in the business of selling, testing, distributing, supplying, 

manufacturing, marketing, and/or promoting Roundup, and through that conduct have

knowingly and intentionally placed Roundup into the stream of commerce with full

knowledge that it reaches consumers such as Plaintiff who are exposed to it through ordinary 

and reasonably foreseeable uses.

167. Defendant did in fact sell, distribute, supply, manufacture, and/or promote 

Roundup to Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant expected the Roundup that it was selling,

distributing, supplying, manufacturing, and/or promoting to reach – and Roundup did in fact

reach – consumers, including Plaintiff, without any substantial change in the condition of the

product from when it was initially distributed by Defendant.

168. At the time of manufacture, Defendant could have provided the warnings or 

instructions regarding the full and complete risks of Roundup and glyphosate-containing 

products because it knew or should have known of the unreasonable risks of harm associated 

with the use of and/or exposure to such products.

169. At all times herein mentioned, the aforesaid product was defective and unsafe in 

manufacture such that it was unreasonably dangerous to the user, and was so at the time it was 

distributed by Defendant and at the time Plaintiff was exposed to and/or ingested the product. 

The defective condition of Roundup was due in part to the fact that it was not accompanied by 

proper warnings regarding its carcinogenic qualities and possible side effects, including, but not 

limited to, developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure and use.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 30 of 36
31

170. Roundup did not contain a warning or caution statement, which was necessary 

and, if complied with, was adequate to protect the health of those exposed in violation of 7 

U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E). 

171. Defendant’s failure to include a warning or caution statement which was

necessary and, if complied with, was adequate to protect the health of those exposed, violated 7 

U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E) as well as the laws of the State of Missouri.

172. Defendant could have amended the label of Roundup to provide additional 

warnings.

173. This defect caused serious injury to Plaintiff, who used Roundup in its

intended and foreseeable manner.

174. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant had a duty to properly design, 

manufacture, compound, test, inspect, package, label, distribute, market, examine, maintain 

supply, provide proper warnings, and take such steps to assure that the product did not

cause users to suffer from unreasonable and dangerous side effects.

175. Defendant labeled, distributed, and promoted the aforesaid product that it was

dangerous and unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended.

176. Defendant failed to warn of the nature and scope of the side effects associated

with Roundup, namely its carcinogenic properties and its propensity to cause or serve as a 

substantial contributing factor in the development of NHL.

177. Defendant was aware of the probable consequences of the aforesaid conduct. 

Despite the fact that Defendant knew or should have known that Roundup caused serious 

injuries, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangerous carcinogenic 

properties and side effect of developing NHL from Roundup exposure, even though these side

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 31 of 36
32

effects were known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of distribution. Defendant

willfully and deliberately failed to avoid the consequences associated with its failure to warn, 

and in doing so, Defendant acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff.

178. At the time of exposure, Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered any

defect in Roundup prior through the exercise of reasonable care.

179. Defendant, as the manufacturer and/or distributor of the subject product, is held

to the level of knowledge of an expert in the field.

180. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment

of Defendant.

181. Had Defendant properly disclosed the risks associated with Roundup products,

Plaintiff would have avoided the risk of NHL by not using Roundup products.

182. The information that Defendant did provide or communicate failed to contain 

adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled Plaintiff, and similarly situated 

individuals, to utilize the product safely and with adequate protection. Instead, Defendant

disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading and which failed to 

communicate accurately or adequately the comparative severity, duration, and extent of the risk 

of injuries associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup and glyphosate; continued to 

promote the efficacy of Roundup, even after it knew or should have known of the unreasonable 

risks from use or exposure; and concealed, downplayed, or otherwise suppressed, through 

aggressive marketing and promotion, any information or research about the risks and dangers of 

exposure to Roundup and glyphosate.

183. To this day, Defendant has failed to adequately warn of the true risks of Plaintiff’s 

injuries associated with the use of and exposure to Roundup.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 32 of 36
33

184. As a result of its inadequate warnings, Defendant’s Roundup products were 

defective and unreasonably dangerous when they left the possession and/or control of Defendant, 

were distributed by Defendant, and used by Plaintiff. 

185. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, and

in such other ways to be later shown, the subject product caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries

as herein alleged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs herein 

incurred, attorneys’ fees and all relief as this Court deems just and proper. Additionally, Plaintiff 

demands a jury trial on all issues contained herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES)

186. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation of this 

Complaint contained in each of the foregoing paragraphs inclusive, with the same force and 

effect all if more fully set forth herein.

187. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant manufactured, distributed, 

compounded, recommended, merchandized, advertised, promoted, and sold Roundup as a broad 

spectrum herbicide. These actions were under the ultimate control and supervision of Defendant.

188. At the time Defendant marketed, sold, and distributed Roundup for use by 

Plaintiff, Defendant knew of Roundup’s intended use and impliedly warranted the product to be 

or merchantable quality and safe and fit for this use.

189. The Defendant impliedly represented and warranted to Plaintiff and users of 

Roundup, the agricultural community, and/or the EPA that Roundup was safe and of 

merchantable quality and fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was to be used.

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 33 of 36
34

190. These representations and warranties were false, misleading, and inaccurate in 

that Roundup was unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, not of merchantable quality, and defective.

191. Plaintiff and/or the EPA did rely on said implied warranty of merchantability of 

fitness for particular use and purpose.

192. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the skill and judgment of Defendant as to whether 

Roundup was of merchantable quality and safe and fit for its intended use.

193. Roundup was injected into the stream of commerce by the Defendant in a 

defective, unsafe, and inherently dangerous condition, and the products’ materials were expected 

to and did reach users, handlers, and persons coming into contact with said products without 

substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.

194. The Defendant breached the aforesaid implied warranties, as its herbicide

Roundup was not fit for its intended purposes and uses.

195. As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered from NHL and 

Plaintiff suffered severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, 

physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, financial expenses for 

hospitalization and medical care, including medical expenses and other economic, and noneconomic damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s 

favor for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs herein incurred, 

attorneys’ fees and all relief as this Court deems just and proper. Additionally, Plaintiff demands 

a jury trial on all issues contained herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on each of the aboveCase 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 34 of 36
35

referenced claims and causes of action and as follows:

1. Awarding compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount, 

including, but not limited to pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and 

other non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial of this action;

2. Awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff for past and future damages, 

including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s pain and suffering and for severe and permanent personal 

injuries sustained by the Plaintiff including health care costs and economic loss;

3. Awarding economic damages in the form of medical expenses, out of pocket 

expenses, lost earnings and other economic damages in an amount to be determine at trial of this 

action;

4. Pre-judgment interest;

5. Post-judgment interest;

6. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees;

7. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of these proceedings; and

8. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues.

Dated: December 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

s/Jacob A. Flint 

Jacob A. Flint, MO Bar No. 60740 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

112 Magnolia Dr. 

Glen Carbon, IL 62034 

Phone: 618-205-2017 

Fax: 618-288-2864 

jflint@flintfirm.com

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 35 of 36
36

To be admitted Pro Hac Vice

s/ David J. Wool

ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.

Aimee H. Wagstaff, Bar No. 36819

David J. Wool, Bar No. 44614

7171 W. Alaska Drive

Lakewood, CO 80226

Tel: (303) 376-6360

Fax: (303) 376-6361

aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com

david.wool@andruswagstaff.com

Case 3:17-cv-00736-VC Document 1 Filed 12/28/16 Page 36 of 36