California Judge Slashes $200+ Million From Historic Roundup Verdict
The ruling from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos stopped short of tossing out all $250 million punitive damages awarded by the jury, but capped punitives at $39.25 million, equal to the amount of compensatory damages.
October 22, 2018 at 11:40 PM
3 minute read
A California state court judge has struck more than $200 million in punitive damages from a verdict linking Monsanto Co.'s herbicide Roundup to cancer.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos oversaw a jury trial earlier this year where a former school groundskeeper won a $289 million verdict from Monsanto after being diagnosed with cancer following exposure to one of the company's herbicide.
But in a ruling Monday, Bolanos held that the $250 million punitive damages award handed down by the jury was unconstitutionally high. Bolanos' ruling, however, stopped short of Monsanto's request to toss out and cap punitives at $39.25 million, equal to the amount of compensatory damages.
The company told the Wall Street Journal in a statement Monday that the damages reduction was “a step in the right direction,” but that it continued “to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law.”
However, attorneys for the plaintiff, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a former school groundskeeper diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014 after using Monsanto's herbicide Ranger Pro, told the Journal that the reduction in damages was improper and that they were considering their options for pursuing a new trial. But they said they were “happy the jury's voice was acknowledged by the court, even if slightly muted.”
Bolanos had indicated in a tentative ruling on Monsanto's motion for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict that she thought the evidence was insufficient to warrant $250 million in punitive damages since the plaintiffs had failed to show “malice or oppression” by Monsanto.
But in Monday's order, Bolanos found to the contrary. “The jury could find that the decision by Monsanto to continue marketing [glyphosphate-based herbivores] notwithstanding a possible link with [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] constitutes corporate malice for purposes of punitive damages.”
Read the order:
Read More:
This content has been archived.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 AllA Judge Asks: Is It Time to End Ken Feinberg's Roundup Settlement Program?
7 minute readWhy the Wide Range of Roundup Verdicts? It Might Depend on What Juries Hear About the EPA
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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