Since the Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell in June, Bayer / Monsanto has argued that the decision should reach well beyond the label-based failure-to-warn claim actually before the Court and eliminate other Roundup claims as well.
Both federal and state trial courts around the country are increasingly expressing skepticism about Bayer’s position, with several courts rejecting it altogether and allowing trials to move forward.
In recent Roundup cases governed by Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Massachusetts law, judges have allowed non-labeling claims to move forward, permitted plaintiffs to proceed with amended theories, or restricted the arguments Monsanto can raise based on Durnell. Although the cases involve different state laws and procedural postures, a pattern is emerging: courts are reluctant to turn Durnell into a blanket preemption ruling for every theory of liability against Monsanto.
Amos and Alison: Judge May Rejects Monsanto’s Broader Reading of Durnell
Two of the strongest post-Durnell rulings have come from St. Louis County Circuit Judge Brian May in the Amos and Alison cases.
Across the two cases, the plaintiffs had pleaded claims beyond the label-based failure-to-warn theory addressed in Durnell, including design-defect and other non-labeling claims governed by Florida, Virginia, or Louisiana law.
Monsanto argued that those claims should nevertheless fall with Durnell. Judge May disagreed.
In the Amos ruling, Judge May explained:
“The Court, however, does not read Durnell as being dispositive of Plaintiffs’ other claims at the summary judgment stage.”
In detailed rulings, Judge May rejected Monsanto’s attempt to extend Durnell to claims the Supreme Court did not decide. The court instead examined the plaintiffs’ separately pleaded causes of action under the law governing each claim and concluded that certain non-labeling claims, including design-defect claims, could continue despite Monsanto’s Durnell-based preemption argument.
The precise results differed between the cases. In Amos, Judge May also declined at the summary-judgment stage to eliminate the plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claims. In the Alison ruling, however, the court held that Louisiana law barred punitive damages while allowing the plaintiff’s design-defect and express-warranty claims to continue. Both Amos and Alison will now proceed to trial in October.
Shull: Extending Durnell Would Be an “Unwarranted Expansion”
A Missouri court reached a similar result in the August 31 Shull ruling.
After Durnell, Monsanto sought summary judgment. Shull sought permission to amend his petition and proceed principally on design-defect and negligence theories.
Circuit Judge Jeff Harris denied Monsanto’s motion and allowed the amendment.
The court emphasized that:
“Durnell addressed only failure to warn claims.”
Judge Harris concluded that applying the decision to design-defect and negligence claims that were never before the Supreme Court would amount to an “unwarranted expansion” of Durnell.
The court also rejected Monsanto’s separate implied-preemption argument and allowed Shull’s punitive-damages claim to remain. Like Amos and Alison, the Shull case is set for trial in October.
Tudal: Monsanto Can Brief Durnell, But It Cannot Reopen Everything Else
A new ruling in one of Leckman Law’s District of Massachusetts cases reaches a favorable result through a different procedural route.
Leckman Law represents the plaintiffs in Tudal v. Monsanto, which was previously part of the federal Roundup MDL before being remanded to Massachusetts.
Following Durnell, the parties submitted competing positions on the decision’s effect on Tudal’s claims. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs will allow Monsanto to file a limited renewed motion for summary judgment addressing whether Durnell preempts those claims.
But the court signaled skepticism toward Monsanto’s expansive interpretation of the decision.
Quoting another recent Roundup ruling, Judge Burroughs wrote that the court:
“is not convinced Durnell is as far-reaching as Monsanto suggests.”
Just as importantly, Monsanto cannot use the renewed motion to make arguments that were available before Durnell.
Judge Burroughs specifically barred Monsanto from challenging the evidentiary sufficiency of Tudal’s design-defect and non-label failure-to-warn theories or arguing that those theories are not viable under Massachusetts law. Monsanto had been on notice of those claims since the complaint was filed and had a full opportunity to raise those arguments when it previously moved for summary judgment before the MDL court.
Monsanto’s renewed motion is therefore limited to arguments concerning whether Durnell preempts Tudal’s claims.
For now, the post-Durnell landscape continues to develop claim by claim, with whether particular claims can move forward depending on the governing state law, the claims actually pleaded, and the procedural history of each case.
Leckman Law continues to litigate Roundup cases and monitor these post-Durnell developments closely. If you or a family member developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after Roundup exposure, contact Leckman Law to discuss the circumstances of your potential claim.
Disclaimer: The articles on this blog are for informational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results and pending litigation developments do not guarantee any particular outcome, and claim eligibility may depend on the facts, applicable deadlines, jurisdiction, court rulings, and other legal considerations. If you are seeking legal advice, please contact the law firm directly.