Roundup Judge Sanctions Another Plaintiffs Attorney for 'Bad Faith Misconduct'
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Tuesday found that Jennifer Moore “intentionally joined in the bad faith misconduct” that prompted him to sanction lead plaintiffs counsel Aimee Wagstaff in the second trial over Roundup.
May 21, 2019 at 02:23 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge has sanctioned a second lawyer who “intentionally joined in the bad faith misconduct” during opening statements of a trial against Monsanto Co. over its herbicide Roundup.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, sanctioned Jennifer Moore, co-lead trial counsel in the second trial over Roundup. The order follows a Feb. 26 decision in which Chhabria sanctioned plaintiffs attorney Aimee Wagstaff, of Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colorado, for “obvious violations” of his pretrial orders during her opening statement. At that time, he ordered Wagstaff to provide the names of other attorneys who worked with her on that opening statement, which she did last month.
On Tuesday, Chhabria concluded that Moore “intentionally joined in the bad faith misconduct for which Wagstaff was sanctioned.” As he did with Wagstaff, Chhabria ordered Moore to pay $500.
“I strongly disagree with the Court's Order,” wrote Moore, of the Moore Law Group in Louisville, Kentucky, in an email. “There is no legal or factual basis for sanctioning Ms. Wagstaff or me and we are considering our options.”
But Chhabria declined to sanction the other five attorneys on the plaintiffs' trial team, finding he could not “determine with sufficient confidence” whether they had “intentionally committed misconduct.”
Those attorneys were Michael Baum and R. Brent Wisner, partners at Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles; Mark Burton, of counsel at San Francisco's Audet & Partners; and David Wool and Kathryn Forgie of Andrus Wagstaff.
Wisner declined to comment. The other lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.
The trial, which was the first in the federal multidistrict litigation over Roundup, involved plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, who is in remission from non-Hodgkin lymphoma allegedly caused after he used Monsanto's herbicide to clear poison oak from his property.
A jury awarded an $80 million verdict for Wagstaff's client March 27. It was the second award against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, with the first ending in a $289 million verdict last year in San Francisco Superior Court. A third trial ended this month when a jury in Alameda County Superior Court awarded $2 billion to a California couple who both had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Lawyers on the plaintiffs' team in the trial before Chhabria had submitted their responses to his sanctions probe under seal. In Tuesday's order, Chhabria, after reviewing those documents, found that Moore played a more active role than the other attorneys did in finalizing the opening statement in the days before the trial began.
“It is clear from the attorney submissions—particularly Wool's—that the issue of violating the court's pretrial rulings was very much on the team's radar as of at least February 23rd, but that did not prevent Moore and Wagstaff from going forward with an opening statement that so obviously violated those pretrial rulings,” he wrote.
Wagstaff previously insisted in court documents last month that she had “ultimate decision making responsibility” as to trial strategy, and had not presented the opening statement “in bad faith.” She urged Chhabria not to sanction any member of her trial team.
Moore, at a hearing over Wagstaff's sanctions in February, defended the opening statement in light of the “unique nature of this trial.” Chhabria had bifurcated the trial so that the first phase focused on whether Hardeman's use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, while a second phase would address Monsanto's conduct.
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 AllLitigator of the Week: A Long-Sought Win on Preemption for Monsanto at the Third Circuit
Litigators of the Week: Proskauer Scores a Defense Win for Last Defendant Standing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
Litigators of the Week: Covington Team Gets a Directed Verdict in First Trial Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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