Judge Winifred Smith of the Alameda County Superior Court. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)Judge Whittles Down $2B RoundUp Verdict to $86.7M
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith found, though the evidence at trial could support a finding that RoundUp caused Alva and Alberta Pilliod to contract non-Hodgkin lymphoma, that general and specific causation was disputed.
July 25, 2019 at 09:27 PM
3 minute read
An Alameda County Superior Court judge has slashed a $2 billion verdict against Monsanto Co. to $86.7 million in a case brought by a couple who claim the company's RoundUp herbicide contributed to their cancer.
Judge Winifred Smith reduced the punitive, noneconomic and future medical damages in the case brought by Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who allege RoundUp led to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses.
Although Smith said the evidence presented at trial could support a finding that RoundUp caused the Pilliods to contract NHL, she found the general and specific causation was disputed in court. “For example, in addition to being potentially idiopathic, there was evidence that each Pilliod had one or more risk factors that suggest other causes of NHL,” she wrote in Thursday's ruling.
Smith cut Alva Pilliod's noneconomic damages from $18 million to $6.1 million and his punitive damages from $1 billion to $24.5 million. Alberta Pilliod's future medical damage award dropped from $2.9 million to $50,000; her noneconomic damages from $34 million to $11 million; and her punitive damages from $1 billion to $44.8 million.
Despite the reduction, Brent Wisner, counsel for the Pilliods and partner at Baum Hedlund in Los Angeles, said the ruling is still a net positive. “This a major victory for the Pilliods,” Wisner said. “The judge rejected every argument Monsanto raised and sustained a very substantial verdict. While we believe the reduction in damages does not fairly capture the pain and suffering experienced by Alva and Alberta, the overall result is a big win.”
Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, said that it will continue to dispute the science behind the claims that RoundUp causes cancer.
“The Court's decision to reduce the punitive, non-economic, and future medical damage awards is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial and conflict with the extensive body of reliable science and conclusions of leading health regulators worldwide that confirms glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic,” the company said in a statement. “During argument on the post-trial motions, Bayer argued that the recent California Court of Appeal ruling in Echeverria, which found that a dispute over the science does not meet the clear and convincing standard required for a punitive award, supports the company's position that there is no basis to award punitive damages in this case.”
Bayer plans to file an appeal on the grounds that regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have reported that the company's glyphosate-based products are not carcinogenic.
Read the order:
|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
A Judge Asks: Is It Time to End Ken Feinberg's Roundup Settlement Program?
7 minute read
Why the Wide Range of Roundup Verdicts? It Might Depend on What Juries Hear About the EPA
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
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
