Plaintiff's Lawyers Defend $75M in Punitive Damages in Roundup Verdict
Lawyers for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, in a brief filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, defended the jury's award while challenging U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria's reduction of $75 million in punitive damages to $20 million.
March 17, 2020 at 04:54 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A man who won an $80 million verdict over Monsanto Co.'s Roundup last year defended the award on appeal, including the jury's original award of $75 million in punitive damages.
In a brief filed Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff's lawyers defended U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria's rulings as to the scientific evidence allowed at trial and insisted that federal law did not preempt claims that their client, Edwin Hardeman, got non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup, an herbicide, on his properties for 25 years.
In their own appeal, however, they challenged Chhabria's decision to reduce the jury's verdict to $25.3 million, particularly the $20 million in punitive damages.
"Monsanto's conduct was so reprehensible in this case that a size-able punitive damages award is not only warranted but essential," said Leslie Brueckner, of Public Justice, one of Hardeman's lawyers. "Monsanto has known for years that Roundup may cause cancer, but it has steadfastly refused to test Roundup to see whether it cause cancer, and it has ghost-written articles to hide the risk of cancer, and meanwhile, the company has been claiming to the American public and to regulators that Roundup is safe and does not cause any diseases at all."
Brueckner joined attorneys at Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colorado, and Moore Law Group in Louisville, Kentucky, on the briefs.
Bayer said in an emailed statement: "Monsanto believes that the verdict in Hardeman v. Monsanto should be reversed because the failure-to-warn claims at the center of the case are preempted by federal law, and the trial court committed a host of reversible evidentiary and instructional errors relating to causation."
The 2019 trial was the first in federal court, where 5,000 Roundup lawsuits are pending in multidistrict litigation. Hardeman's verdict was the second to find that Roundup caused someone to get non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A previous jury, in San Francisco Superior Court, had awarded $289 million, later reduced to $78 million, and jurors in Alameda County Superior Court later awarded $2 billion to a California couple.
Although Chhabria, of the Northern District of California, refused to toss punitive damages, citing Monsanto's "reprehensible" conduct, he lowered the amount, which he considered "constitutionally impermissible," to a 4:1 ratio to Hardeman's compensatory damages.
On Dec. 13, Bayer, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, filed its Ninth Circuit appeal to reverse the verdict, which, it said, "defies both expert regulatory judgment and sound science." It cited federal preemption, "serious legal errors" on causation, and Monsanto's lack of alleged "reprehensible conduct" justifying punitive damages.
"In this appeal, Monsanto ignores the jury's factual findings," Hardeman's lawyers responded. "Monsanto received a fair trial in this case before a meticulous judge and an impartial jury."
Monsanto has insisted federal preemption barred Hardeman's claims because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found glyphosate to be safe. Hardeman's lawyers countered in Monday's brief said Monsanto "cannot seriously maintain that an informal letter of this nature carries the force of law."
Moreover, they wrote, the EPA's finding focused on glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup, but not the product itself.
They also insisted that Chhabria's decision to allow them to tell the jury about the 2015 decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified glyphosate as a carcinogen, made up for the "enormous advantage" Monsanto got in bifurcating the trial.
And they defended Chhabria's jury instructions relating to causation and their experts.
"That the jury came to a conclusion that Monsanto does not like is no reason to find the court abused its discretion in allowing them to do their job," they wrote.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute read'That's Not the Job' for the DOL: Crop of Suits Against Biden Administration
6 minute read'Ill-Gotten Gains'?: Cadwalader Alleges Beef Price-Fixing Conspiracy Hurts McDonald's
2 minute read'Climate-Smart Beef'?: DC Lawsuit Accuses Tyson Foods of False Advertising
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250