Preview
\r ORIGINAL N i“
SUPERIQRFC(g' 'RTE‘S" :lrlecv Inr-
COUNTY 0F SAN BE 2N A
SAN BERN \ano ersar'39g3d
Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 1 19854)
Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) JUL 55
U ?022
KIESEL LAW LLP
t
8648 Wilshire Boulevard BY ”\- iégzu
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 ,.
Tel: 310-854-4444 L.) 97:.qu
Fax: 310-854-0812
kiesel@kiesel.law
palmer@kiesel.law
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer
Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall
FAX
TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood
3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP
Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200
Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244
BY Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027
fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629
melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com
10 ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
11
DONNETTA STEPHENS
LLP
12
Law
California
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
at
LAW
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Hills,
14
Attorneys
DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case N0. CIVSB2104801
KIESEL
15
Beverly
Plaintiff, AssignedforAll Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert
16
G. Ochoa, Dept. S24
v.
17 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF
MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
18
CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
Defendant. T0 WARN CLAIM
19
Department: 824
20 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
21
Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
22
Trial Date: July 19, 2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO WARN CLAIM
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Monsanto erroneously claims that Plaintiffno longer has an active failure to warn
c1aim,‘ and therefore seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence showing Monsanto’s
failure to warn that Roundup can cause cancer in contexts separate from the product’s label. Because
FIFRA’s preemption provision is narrow and does not apply to warnings outside of a product’s
label, Plaintiffs failure to warn claim remains, and Monsanto’s arguments suggesting otherwise
should be rejected outright.
ll. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff should be permitted t0 introduce evidence 0f Monsanto’s failure t0 warn if such
evidence is independent of the Roundup label. Per the Supreme Court case, Bates v. Dow
Agrosciences LLC (2005) 554 U.S. 431, 444, FIFRA only preempts a state law claim in a very
10 narrow context, namely, When the state law is a requirement “for labeling 0r packing.” Id. FIFRA
11 defines “label” as “the written, printed, or graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide 0r device
12 or any 0f its containers or wrappers.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(p)(1). “Labeling” means “all labels and all
LLP
L‘aw
California
other written, printed, 0r graphic matter — (A) accompanying the pesticide or device at any time; 0r
13
at
LAW
(B) t0 which reference is made 0n the label or in literature accompanying the pesticide 0r device . .
Hills,
14
Attorheys ..” 7 U.S.C. § 136(p)(2).2
KIESEL
15
Beverly
In addition to Bates, the California Supreme Court case, Etcheverry v. Tri—Ag Service, Inc.
16
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 3 l6, 324, is both binding and instructive 0n this point. As the Court held:
17 ...the extent t0 which FIFRA preempts actions based 0n so-called off—label
statements, that is, statements made outside of the context of labeling 0r packaging;
18
for example, claims made orally 0r in advertising materials[,] the critical question is
whether the off-label statements ‘merely repeat information in the label itself.’
19
Where off-label statements address matters outside the scope 0f the label, an
20 action may lie.
Id. (emphasis added). Based on these holdings, a failure to warn claim premised on statements made
21
in an off—label warning, such as a warning through advertisements, marketing statements, 0r point—
22
of-sale warnings, is not preempted if those statements go beyond the content 0f what is provided in
23 a Roundup label, both in terms of the modality of the warning and the content of the waming.3
24
1
Per this Court’s July 19, 2021 Minute Order regarding Defendant Monsanto’s Motion for Summary
25
Judgment/Adjudication, “The Court denies Defendant Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Adjudication 0f the lst, 3rd,
5th, and 6th causes 0f action.” Plaintiffs 3rd cause 0f action is negligence which includes a claim for negligent failure
26 to warn. See Plaintiff’s Complaint at 1N 165; 169; 171; 172.
2
Monsanto miscites this section by stating that the definition of “label” encompasses “any warning.” Defendant’s
27 Motion at p. 2 1n. 5-6.
3
See Trammell Decl., Ex. 1, Stephens Roundup Label. The label for the type of Roundup used by Plaintiff only
28 addresses eye irritation.
2
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO WARN CLAIM
Preview
\r ORIGINAL N i“ SUPERIQRFC(g' 'RTE‘S" :lrlecv Inr- COUNTY 0F SAN BE 2N A SAN BERN \ano ersar'39g3d Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 1 19854) Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) JUL 55 U ?022 KIESEL LAW LLP t 8648 Wilshire Boulevard BY ”\- iégzu Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 ,. Tel: 310-854-4444 L.) 97:.qu Fax: 310-854-0812 kiesel@kiesel.law palmer@kiesel.law Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall FAX TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200 Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244 BY Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027 fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629 melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com 10 ak@kirkendalldwyer.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com 11 DONNETTA STEPHENS LLP 12 Law California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 at LAW COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Hills, 14 Attorneys DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case N0. CIVSB2104801 KIESEL 15 Beverly Plaintiff, AssignedforAll Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert 16 G. Ochoa, Dept. S24 v. 17 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 18 CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE Defendant. T0 WARN CLAIM 19 Department: 824 20 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 21 Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 22 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO WARN CLAIM I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Monsanto erroneously claims that Plaintiffno longer has an active failure to warn c1aim,‘ and therefore seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence showing Monsanto’s failure to warn that Roundup can cause cancer in contexts separate from the product’s label. Because FIFRA’s preemption provision is narrow and does not apply to warnings outside of a product’s label, Plaintiffs failure to warn claim remains, and Monsanto’s arguments suggesting otherwise should be rejected outright. ll. ARGUMENT Plaintiff should be permitted t0 introduce evidence 0f Monsanto’s failure t0 warn if such evidence is independent of the Roundup label. Per the Supreme Court case, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 554 U.S. 431, 444, FIFRA only preempts a state law claim in a very 10 narrow context, namely, When the state law is a requirement “for labeling 0r packing.” Id. FIFRA 11 defines “label” as “the written, printed, or graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide 0r device 12 or any 0f its containers or wrappers.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(p)(1). “Labeling” means “all labels and all LLP L‘aw California other written, printed, 0r graphic matter — (A) accompanying the pesticide or device at any time; 0r 13 at LAW (B) t0 which reference is made 0n the label or in literature accompanying the pesticide 0r device . . Hills, 14 Attorheys ..” 7 U.S.C. § 136(p)(2).2 KIESEL 15 Beverly In addition to Bates, the California Supreme Court case, Etcheverry v. Tri—Ag Service, Inc. 16 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 3 l6, 324, is both binding and instructive 0n this point. As the Court held: 17 ...the extent t0 which FIFRA preempts actions based 0n so-called off—label statements, that is, statements made outside of the context of labeling 0r packaging; 18 for example, claims made orally 0r in advertising materials[,] the critical question is whether the off-label statements ‘merely repeat information in the label itself.’ 19 Where off-label statements address matters outside the scope 0f the label, an 20 action may lie. Id. (emphasis added). Based on these holdings, a failure to warn claim premised on statements made 21 in an off—label warning, such as a warning through advertisements, marketing statements, 0r point— 22 of-sale warnings, is not preempted if those statements go beyond the content 0f what is provided in 23 a Roundup label, both in terms of the modality of the warning and the content of the waming.3 24 1 Per this Court’s July 19, 2021 Minute Order regarding Defendant Monsanto’s Motion for Summary 25 Judgment/Adjudication, “The Court denies Defendant Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Adjudication 0f the lst, 3rd, 5th, and 6th causes 0f action.” Plaintiffs 3rd cause 0f action is negligence which includes a claim for negligent failure 26 to warn. See Plaintiff’s Complaint at 1N 165; 169; 171; 172. 2 Monsanto miscites this section by stating that the definition of “label” encompasses “any warning.” Defendant’s 27 Motion at p. 2 1n. 5-6. 3 See Trammell Decl., Ex. 1, Stephens Roundup Label. The label for the type of Roundup used by Plaintiff only 28 addresses eye irritation. 2 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO WARN CLAIM