Judge Tentatively Strikes $250M in Punitives From Roundup Verdict
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos issued the tentative ahead of a hearing on Wednesday afternoon.
October 10, 2018 at 06:33 PM
3 minute read
|
A San Francisco judge has tentatively struck the punitive damages in a $289 million verdict linking Monsanto Co.'s herbicide Roundup to cancer.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who oversaw the trial, heard arguments in court on Wednesday afternoon. In her tentative ruling, issued ahead of that hearing, the judge addressed Monsanto's two motions –- one for a new trial and one for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. She said the evidence wasn't there to award $250 million in punitive damages.
“The evidence to support the finding of malice or oppression must be clear and convincing,” she wrote. “Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression by Monsanto.”
A spokeswoman for Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, whose partner R. Brent Wisner won the Aug. 10 verdict, declined to comment until after the hearing. Wisner represented plaintiff Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a former school groundskeeper diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014 after using Monsanto's herbicide Ranger Pro.
Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, issued a statement: “Bayer agrees with the Court's tentative ruling which, if finalized by the court, would vacate the punitive damages awarded in the Johnson case. The court also is considering Monsanto's motions for a new trial, JNOV and reduction of the compensatory damages.”
Johnson's trial was one of about 150 cases coordinated in California state courts and the first of more than 4,000 lawsuits nationwide to go to trial.
In its motions, Monsanto argued that Johnson's lawyers had failed to provide evidence that glyphosate, the key ingredient in its herbicide products, caused Johnson's cancer. Monsanto also argued that the damages were excessive and unconstitutional, particularly since there was no evidence of malice to warrant punitive damages.
Plaintiffs responded with opposition papers on Oct. 1. However, Bolanos in her tentative noted that the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence that any Monsanto employee believed exposure to its glyphosate -based products would cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto's efforts to test its products, she writes, also are “not consistent with a finding of conscious disregard.”
“Given the state of medical and scientific knowledge, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Monsanto acted with malice or oppression,” Bolanos adds.
At trial, plaintiff's attorneys made much of the fact that Monsanto did not return Johnson's phone calls asking about cancer risks. But Bolanos said, even if that were true, “not returning a phone call does not rise to the level of despicable conduct.”
The tentative order told lawyers to be prepared at the hearing to discuss other arguments, including those addressing liability. The jury's award included $39.2 million in compensatory damages. That included $1 million a year for future noneconomic damages for a healthy adult's life span of 33 years – a calculation that Monsanto argued the jury should have based on Johnson's actual life expectancy of less than two years.
Monsanto also cited “significant prejudicial misconduct” by Wisner that “inflamed the jury.”
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 All'No Holds Barred': Why Alston & Bird Is Leaning Into Los Angeles
'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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