HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on May 18 allowed most of the plaintiffs’ experts in a chemical exposure case and granted certification of the class, as residents seek to hold a chemical company accountable for their injuries following an explosion to emitted multiple toxins into the air and groundwater following damage from Hurricane Harvey.
BENTON, Ill. — McDonald’s Corp. on June 1 filed a brief in Illinois federal court arguing that it should dismiss a lawsuit brought by customers seeking damages for exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging because the plaintiffs fail to claim an injury in fact.
TOLEDO, Ohio — On June 1, a couple sued Monsanto Co. in Ohio federal court contending that the husband developed cancer as a direct result of Monsanto’s “tortious, negligence, and wrongful conduct” related to the manufacture of the herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate, a chemical the couple says is dangerous to human health.
WILMINGTON, Del. — A cancer victim on May 27 sued Monsanto Co. in Delaware state court contending that it is liable for his injury because it “knowingly, affirmatively, and actively concealed safety information” about the herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate, a chemical the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified as a “probable human carcinogen.” He also says Monsanto committed scientific fraud and engaged in secret meetings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to get Roundup approved for consumer use.
MINNEAPOLIS — A cancer victim on June 1 sued Monsanto Co. in a Minnesota federal court arguing that Monsanto is liable for her injury because it had “full knowledge” of the dangerous and defective nature of the herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate.
HOUSTON — A Texas federal bankruptcy judge on May 26 approved a settlement agreement between a bankrupt oil refinery facing water contamination issues in the Virgin Islands and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) related to violations of federal laws pertaining to the safe handling of hazardous substances. Under the terms of the settlement, the DOL will be deemed to hold an allowed prepetition, unsecured governmental fine and penalty claim in the amount of $259,407.
SHREVEPORT, La. — A Louisiana appellate panel on May 25 affirmed dismissal of a chemical exposure injury lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to show that her inhalation of chemicals while visiting a hospital caused her various skin injuries.
SAN FRANCISCO — A nonprofit law firm, farmworkers associations and others on May 25 filed an opening brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision, which approves the use of the pesticide paraquat for up to 15 additional years, is “unsupported by the evidentiary record and contrary to” the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The commonwealth of Massachusetts on May 25 sued the makers of the firefighting agent known as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) in South Carolina federal court, contending that they are liable for “tortious and unlawfully deceptive actions” that have contaminated groundwater in the commonwealth because they continued to manufacture AFFF’s ingredients, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), despite understanding their toxicity.
CONCORD, N.H. — E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. on May 23 joined a brief filed by 3M Co. objecting to the state of New Hampshire’s motion to remand its lawsuit against the makers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to state court from New Hampshire federal court, which came amid a decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the case to the MDL for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California couple on May 20 filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court contending that review of a $86,742,310 glyphosatecancer verdict is “unwarranted” and that review of Monsanto Co.’s preemption argument in the case “would be purely advisory.”
MINNEAPOLIS — An attorney on May 23 filed four lawsuits in Minnesota federal court against Monsanto Co., contending that it is liable for causing each of the plaintiffs to develop cancer from exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. The lawsuits follow a boilerplate format that alleges that Monsanto had “full knowledge of its dangerous and defective nature.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On May 23, Monsanto Co. filed a supplemental brief in the U.S. Supreme Court contending that the U.S. solicitor general’s amicus curiae brief arguing that the court should not hear Monsanto’s appeal of a federal appellate ruling in favor of a glyphosate cancer victim“provides no sound reason to deny review.”
MILWAUKEE — Plaintiffs who sued the former makers of lead-based paint on May 6 filed a brief in Wisconsin federal court contending that the court “improperly used the legal mechanisms of law of the case and issue preclusion to summarily dispose of” roughly 150 cases without considering the evidence; therefore, the court should alter or amend its judgment in which it dismissed all injury claims and reversed a $6 million award against the paint companies.
LAKE CHARLES, La. — A federal judge in Louisiana on May 19 partially dismissed an injury case against a chemical company, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show that they had been injured from the exposure, but saying they had a valid claim for mental distress as a result of an explosion at a plant.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on May 18 dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit against Bayer AG, the parent company of Monsanto Co., related to statements it made about Monsanto’s science-based trial defenses in Roundup litigation, saying the shareholders failed to plead the elements necessary for a violation of Securities and Exchange Rule 10b-5 .
NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana federal judge on May 9 granted a motion to exclude a man’s causation expert who opined that exposure to oil and other contaminants connected to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused his injuries and also agreed that without the expert’s testimony, summary judgment is appropriate.
LOS ANGELES — A California state environmental agency on May 9 filed a brief in California federal court arguing that it should not exclude the agency’s expert witness in a groundwater contamination lawsuit because she satisfies federal evidentiary statutes as well as the Daubert standard.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — A state court judge in New Jersey on April 21 issued an unpublished order certifying a class action brought by residents suing a water company for contamination for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was valid and its requests for injunctive relief are “not frivolous.”
CINCINNATI — A former emergency manager for the city of Flint, Mich., on May 3 filed an appeal brief in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that it should reverse the district court order that denied his motion to quash a subpoena in the trial related to the lead-contaminated water crisis in the city. He argues that he is no longer a party in the litigation.