Preview
. 7 ‘nu
WEE
ca a
ed
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. WITZER, INC.
ron
Brian D. Witzer (SBN 123277) FILED
Michael P. Manapol (SBN 258300) ALAMEDA COUNTY
NHN
Eric R. Canton (SBN 311666) MAY 22 2019
2393 Venus Drive
WD
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Telephone: (310) 777-5999
F THE SUPERIOR COURT
FSP
Facsimile: (310) 777-5988 By y
UN
Attorneys for Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION
HN
SN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CO
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
oOo
—
a
—s
PETER PURIFICACION, an individual,
CASENO-RGE19019910
—
)
)
No
—
Plaintiff, ) UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR
) DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
wo
—
)
VS. )
AB
1. Strict Products Liability-Failure to
—
MONSANTO COMPANY, a corporation; Warn;
—s
WM
WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC, a California Strict Products Liability-Design Defect;
NAMawy
limited liability company; WILBUR-ELLIS Peemgences
nN
)
—
FEED, LLC, a California limited liability ) B
’
h of E ties;
—_
)
~
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, reach ofof Implied
Breach Express Warranties;
Warranties; and
) Exemplary Damages
)
o
_
Defendants.
[Amount Demanded Exceeds $25,000]
Oo
—
)
Oo
nN “ow
Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION, by his undersigned counsel, upon personal knowledge with
ee
respect to their own acts, and upon information and belief with respect to all other matters, aver as
i)
No
follows:
NO
Ww
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
No
p
1. In 1970, Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY (“Monsanto”) discovered the |
WN
nN
herbicidal properties of glyphosate and began marketing it in products in 1974 under the brand name
ho
sD
Roundup®. Roundup® is a non-selective herbicide used to kill weeds that commonly compete with the
bo
growing of crops. By 2001, glyphosate had become the most-used active ingredient in American
oOo
nv
-l-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
agriculture with 85-90 millions of pounds used annually. That number grew to 185 million pounds by
2007. As of 2013, glyphosate was the world’s most widely used herbicide.
VN
2. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis,
WD
Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. As of 2009, Monsanto was the world’s
FP
leading producer of seeds, accounting for 27% of the world seed market. The majority of these seeds
TH
are of the Roundup Ready® brand. The stated advantage of Roundup Ready® crops is that they
DH
substantially improve a farmer’s ability to control weeds, since glyphosate can be sprayed in the fields
SI
during the growing season without harming their crops. In 2010, an estimated 70% of corn and cotton,
Oo
and 90% of soybean fields in the United States were Roundup Ready®.
Oo
10 3. Monsanto’s glyphosate products are registered in 130 countries and approved for use
1] on over 100 different crops. They are ubiquitous in the environment. Numerous studies confirm that
12 glyphosate is found in rivers, streams, and groundwater in agricultural areas where Roundup® is used.
13 It has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the urine of urban dwellers
14 who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.
15 4. On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an
16 agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), issued an evaluation of several herbicides,
17 including glyphosate. That evaluation was based, in part, on studies of exposures to glyphosate in
18 several countries around the world, and it traces the health implications from exposure to glyphosate
19 since 2001.
20 5. On July 29, 2015, the IARC issued the formal monograph relating to glyphosate. In that
21 monograph, the IARC Working Group provides a thorough review of the numerous studies and data
22 relating to glyphosate exposure in humans.
23 6. The IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a Group 2A herbicide, which means
24 that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The LARC Working Group concluded that the cancers most
25 associated with glyphosate exposure are non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other haematopoietic cancers,
26 including lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, and multiple
27 myeloma.
28
-2-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7. The IARC evaluation is significant. It confirms what has been believed for years: that
—&
glyphosate is toxic to humans. Nevertheless, Monsanto since it began selling Roundup®, has
NO
represented it as safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, Monsanto has repeatedly proclaimed and
WY
continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-based
FS
herbicides, including Roundup®, create no unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment.
A
8. Upon information and belief, Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC and Wilbur-Ellis Feed, LLC
ND
were responsible for marketing Roundup and related Monsanto products during the time period in
SN
question.
SH
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
oO
9. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California
|
pk
Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes
|
except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The Statutes under which this action is brought do
NY
not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
WY
10. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because, based on
Bh
km
information and belief, each is a California resident, a corporation and/or entity organized under the
WN
laws of the State of California, a foreign corporation or association authorized to do business in
et
HB
California and registered with the California Secretary of State or that has sufficient minimum contacts
I
ee
in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the
OB
exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play
OO
wm
and substantial justice.
CO
RN
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to section 395(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure
RD
|§
because Plaintiffs injuries occurred in Alameda County, California
NO
KR
12. Furthermore the Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and
WD
DR
the protections of the laws within the State of California. Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY, a
BRO
FF
corporation, (“Monsanto”) has had sufficient contact such that the exercise of jurisdiction would be
HW
KN
consistent with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
DO
NO
13. Plaintiff seeks relief that is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
BN
oN
NY
-3-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PARTIES
ry
14. Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION is a competent individual over the age of 18,
i)
resident and citizen of the State of California, who submits to the jurisdiction of this court and alleges
bw
venue in this Court is proper. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Roundup® and/or other Monsanto
glyphosate-containing products (“Roundup®”) in the State of California from approximately 1999 to
no
2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. .
nN
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon allege that as a direct and
~
Proximate. result of Plaintiff's use of Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products
(“Roundup®”), supplied and/or distributed by Defendants herein, Plaintiff suffered significant harm,
Oo
conscious pain and suffering, physical injury and bodily impairment including, but not limited to non-
SG
Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, other permanent physical deficits, permanent bodily impairment
SS
eet
and other injury sequelae. Plaintiffs injuries required medical intervention to address the adverse
YY
physical effects and damage caused by Plaintiff's use of Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-
WY
containing products (““Roundup®”).
FF
16. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct, acts, omissions, fraudulent
HH
concealments, fraudulent misrepresentations, and fraudulent business practices by Defendants and
DH
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiff used and/or was exposed to Roundup® and was diagnosed
HS
with serious health injuries including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and/or other cancers.
Oe
ww
10. Asa further direct and proximate result of defects in Roundup® and the wrongful
OD
conduct, acts, omissions, and fraudulent misrepresentations of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe
Oo
RD
mental and physical pain and have and will sustain permanent injuries and emotional distress, along
BRD
K§F
with economic loss due to medical expenses and living-related expenses as a result of lifestyle changes.
NY
DN
11. As a further direct and proximate result of defects in Roundup® and the wrongful
NO
WD
conduct, acts, omissions, and fraudulent misrepresentations of Defendants, Plaintiff required medical
SF
KO
intervention in efforts to maintain and/or save Plaintiff.
NO
WH
18. Plaintiff is an individual who suffered damages as a result of injuries resulting from
DN
NR
Plaintiff's use and/or exposure to Roundup® and is authorized to bring an action for the causes of
SN
NO
actions alleged herein including, but not limited to, injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff resulting
oOo
BO
-4.
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
from Plaintiff's use of Roundup®. Said injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were caused or
substantially contributed to by the wrongful conduct of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.
HN
13. The product warnings for Roundup® in effect during the time period Plaintiff used
W
and/or were exposed to Roundup® were vague, incomplete or otherwise inadequate, both substantively
FB
and graphically, to alert consumers to the severe health risks associated with Roundup® use and/or
WA
exposure.
DN
14. The Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, inclusive, did not provide
SS)
adequate warnings to consumers including Plaintiff and the general public about the increased risk of
©
the serious adverse events described herein.
oOo
15. Had Plaintiff been adequately warned by the Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and
OC
ted
each of them, inclusive, of the potential life-threatening side effects of Roundup®, Plaintiff would not
FH
have purchased, used, or been exposed to Roundup®.
wee
HY
16. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff developed serious and dangerous side effects
WD
including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, related injury sequelae, physical pain and
F&F
suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered
A
economic losses and special damages including, but not limited to, loss of earning and medical
DH
expenses. Plaintiff's general and special damages exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
ND
17. Plaintiff has reviewed his potential legal claims and causes of action against the
OH
Defendants and has intentionally chosen only to pursue claims based on state law. Any reference to any
OO
iw
federal agency, regulation or rule is stated solely as background information, and Plaintiff is not
DD
DR
making any claims which raise federal questions. Thus, California state jurisdiction and venue is
RD
|
proper.
HY
RN
18. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
RD
WY
of Defendants, DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and who therefore
BRO
FP
sues.said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges
OH
KN
that each of the defendants fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible, negligently or in
BP
NN
some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby
NO
legally caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will ask leave of
oo
m
5.
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or capacities of such fictitiously named
Fe
defendants when the same have been ascertained.
YO
19. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent, employee and/or
DW
representative of every other defendant, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within
Be
the course and scope of such agency, employment, service and/or representation and directed, aided and
Hh
abetted, authorized and/or ratified each and every act and conduct hereinafter alleged.
SNH
20. _— At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants was the co-tortfeasor of each of the
other defendants.
CoO
DEFENDANTS
Oo
21. Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY (“Monsanto”) is a Delaware corporation with its
OC
tet
headquarters and principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of
KH
Bayer, a multi-national conglomerate with worldwide operations in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and
PPO
health care. At all times relevant to this complaint, Monsanto was the entity that discovered the
WH
mm
herbicidal properties of glyphosate and manufactured Roundup®. Monsanto has regularly transacted
BR
and conducted business within the State of California and has derived substantial revenue from goods
NH
mm
and products, including Roundup®, used in the State of California and employs sales representatives in
DH
the State of California. Monsanto expected or should have expected its acts to have consequences
OY
wm
within the State of California because it derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce and
invoked the benefits and protection of the laws of the State of California.
Oo
NO
22. Defendant, WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY LLC is a California limited liability
ODO
corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in San Francisco, California. At all
RD
EH
times relevant to this complaint, Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC sold and distributed Monsanto products,
NO
NY
including Roundup®, within the State of California.
YD
KR
23. Defendant, WILBUR-ELLIS FEED LLC (with Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC, hereinafter
BP
KO
“Wilbur-Ellis”) is a California limited liability corporation with its headquarters and principal place of
UN
PY
business in San Francisco, California. At all times relevant to this complaint, Wilbur-Ellis Feed LLC
bP
NN
sold and distributed Monsanto products, including Roundup®, within the State of California. Wilbur-
pO
Ellis is a main distributor of Roundup®, and, upon information and belief, distributed the Roundup®
oo
BO
-6-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
used by Plaintiff.
ee
24, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in committing the acts
DN
alleged herein, each and every managing agent, agent, representative and/or employee of the
WY
Defendants was working within the course and scope of said agency, representation and/or employment
FF
with the knowledge, consent, ratification, and authorization of the Defendants and their directors,
WA
officers and/or managing agents.
ND
25. At all relevant times alleged herein, one or more of the corporate Defendants was, and
SY
now is, a corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California and, therefore, is a
So
citizen of the State of California.
Oo
26. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate,
O&O
thet
governmental, or otherwise, of Defendant DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are
KS
unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
NY
is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated herein as a DOE caused
WD
injuries and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged; and that each DOE
FF
Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the acts and omissions alleged herein below, and the resulting
HW
injuries to Plaintiff, and damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
DH
allege the true names and capacities of said DOE Defendants when the same are ascertained.
HD
wim
OHO
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
mentioned, each of the named Defendants and each of the DOE Defendants was the agent, servant,
Oo
employee and/or joint venturer of the other co-Defendants and other DOE Defendants, and each of
DOD
RR
them, and at all said times, each named Defendant and each DOE Defendant was acting in the full
FH
course, scope and authority of said agency, service, employment and/or joint venture.
NY
HR
28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that at all times mentioned herein,
YW
DN
Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were also known as, formerly
FF
RN
known as and/or were the successors and/or predecessors in interest/business/product line/or a portion
OH
KN
thereof, assigns, a parent, a subsidiary (wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner),
HNO
NN
affiliate, partner, co-venturer, merged company, alter egos, agents, equitable trustees and/or fiduciaries
BH
oN
of and/or were members in an entity or entities engaged in the funding, researching, studying,
NM
-7-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, developing, labeling, assembling, distributing, supplying,
—
leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, contracting others for marketing,
LN
warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of Roundup® and/or other
W
Monsanto glyphosate-containing products. Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of
FS
them, are liable for the acts, omissions and tortious conduct of their successors and/or predecessors in
UN
interest/business/product line/or a portion thereof, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, co-
NN
venturers, merged companies, alter egos, agents, equitable trustees, fiduciaries and/or their alternate
entities in that Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, enjoy the goodwill | °
Oo
originally attached to each such alternate entity, acquired the assets or product line (or portion thereof),
Oo
and in that there has been a virtual destruction of Plaintiff's remedy against each such alternate entity,
ee
OO
and that each such Defendant has the ability to assume the risk spreading role of each such alternate
KF
entity.
YM
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
eee
wD
mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were and are
BB
corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of California or the laws of some state
DAW
or foreign jurisdiction; that each of the said Defendants and DOE Defendants were and are authorized
to do and are doing business in the State of California and regularly conducted business in California,
DQ
including in Alameda County. °
we
RDO
30. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100,
GO
and each of them, inclusive, were engaged in the business of researching, developing, designing, |
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce
RD
|&
and into the State of California, including in Alameda County, either directly or indirectly through third
RD
YN
parties or related entities, Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products.
YW
DN
31.. At all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of
BP
BD
them, conducted regular and sustained business and engaged in substantial commerce and business
HW
NN
activity in the State of California, which included but was not limited to selling, marketing and
NO
NK
distributing Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products in the State of
NHN
California, including Alameda County.
Co
NN
-8-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
32. At all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them,
iy
expected or should have expected that their acts would have consequences within the United States of
NY
America including the State of California, including Alameda County, and said Defendants derived and
WD
derive substantial revenue therefrom.
FB
EQUITABLE TOLLING
NH
33. Plaintiff has suffered an illness that has a latency period and does not arise until years
DN
after exposure. Plaintiff had no way of knowing about the risk of serious illness associated with the use
YN
of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate until made aware that Plaintiff's illness, including
oO
non-Hodgkin lymphoma could be caused by use and/or exposure to Roundup®. The discovery rule
Oo
applies, and the statute of limitations was tolled until the day Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that
|
Plaintiff's illness, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were linked to Plaintiff's use and/or exposure to
KH
Roundup®. —
WH
ete
34. Within the time period of any applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff could not have
W
discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate is
BP
injurious to human health. |
HH
35. Plaintiff did not discover and did not know of facts that would cause a reasonable
DR
person to suspect the risk associated with the use of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate nor
HI
would a reasonable and diligent investigation by Plaintiff have disclosed that Roundup® and
CO
glyphosate would cause Plaintiff's illness.
OO
36... The expiration of any applicable statute of limitations has been equitably tolled by
DBD
DR
reason of Monsanto’s fraudulent misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment and fraudulent conduct.
-|&
DN
Through affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff
NY
DN
the true risks associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup®.
NN
WD
37. As aresult of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff could not reasonably have known or
DYN
BF
learned through reasonable diligence that Plaintiff had been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that
UN
N
those risks were the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
DN
PO
38. Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitations because of their
NO
4
concealment of the truth regarding the safety of Roundup®. Defendants had a duty to disclose the true
oo
Ny
-9.
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
character, quality and nature of Roundup® because this was non-public information over which
bot
Defendants continue to have exclusive control. Defendants knew that this information was not available
KN
to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's medical providers and/or health facilities, yet Defendants failed to disclose the
WY
information to the public, including Plaintiff.
FP
39. Defendants had the ability to and did spend enormous amounts of money in furtherance .
OA
of the purposes of marketing and promoting a profitable product, notwithstanding the known or
DBD
reasonably knowable risks. Plaintiff and his medical professionals could not have afforded to and could
YN
not have possibly conducted studies to determine the nature, extent, and identity of related health risks
So
and were forced to rely on Defendants’ representations.
Oo
FACTS
CO
te
40. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicide used in a wide variety of
S|
herbicidal products around the world.
NYO
41. Plants treated with glyphosate translocate the systemic herbicide to their roots, shoot
WH
regions and fruit, where it interferes with the plant’s ability to form aromatic amino acids necessary for
FF
mm
protein synthesis. Treated plants generally die within two to three days. Because plants absorb
OH
glyphosate, it cannot be completely removed by washing or peeling produce or by milling, baking, or
DH
ow
brewing grains.
YD
wm
42. For nearly 40 years, farms across the world have used Roundup® without knowing of
CoO
the dangers its use poses.
we
O
43. That is because when Monsanto first introduced Roundup®, it touted glyphosate as a
DOD
DRO
technological breakthrough: it could kill almost every weed without causing harm either to people or to
RD
FH
the environment. Of course, history has shown that not to be true. According to the WHO, the main
NY
KO
chemical ingredient of Roundup--glyphosate--is a probable cause of cancer. Those most at risk are farm
WY
DT
workers and other individuals with workplace exposure to Roundup®, such as workers in garden
BP
LN
centers, nurseries, and landscapers. Agricultural workers are, once again, victims of corporate greed.
OH
PN
Monsanto assured the public that Roundup® was harmless. In order to prove this, Monsanto
NO
NN
championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies that revealed its dangers. Monsanto led a
DO
prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general
wO
o
-10-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
population that Roundup® was safe.
LP
THE DISCOVERY OF GLYPHOSATE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ROUNDUP®
WD
SF
_ 44. — The herbicidal properties of glyphosate were discovered in 1970 by Monsanto chemist
TDW
John Franz. The first glyphosate-based herbicide was introduced to the market in the mid-1970s under
DN
the brand name Roundup®. From the outset, Monsanto marketed Roundup® as a “safe” general-
HN
purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use; Osborn & Barr joined or took over
CoO
these misleading marketing efforts in the early 1990s and continued through 2012. Monsanto still
oOo
markets Roundup® as safe today.
&
REGISTRATION OF HERBICIDES UNDER FEDERAL LAW
eet
|
4S. The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup®, are
NYO
regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA” or “Act”), 7 U.S.C.
WY
§ 136 et seg. FIFRA requires that all herbicides be registered with the Environmental Protection
F&F
Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described by the Act. 7
i
WH
U.S.C. § 136a (a). |
DB
46. Because herbicides are toxic to plants, animals, and humans, at least to some degree, the
wm
NAN
EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other things, a variety of tests to evaluate the
CO
potential for exposure to herbicides, toxicity to people and other potential non-target organisms, and
mm
OO
other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by the EPA, however, is not an assurance or
RD
OF
finding of safety. The determination the Agency must make in registering or re-registering a product is
RO
not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the product in accordance with its label directions
§
NY
KN
“will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c) (5) (D).
NO
WY
47. FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any
FP
KN
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
WO
HR
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus requires
DW
NO
EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration of a product should be
NO
granted or allowed so that the product may continue to be sold in commerce.
oN
NN
48. The EPA registered Roundup® for distribution, sale, and manufacture in the United
-11-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
States including the State of California.
LD
49. FIFRA generally requires the registrant, Monsanto in the case of Roundup®, to conduct
health and safety testing of herbicide products. The EPA has protocols governing the conduct of tests
WY
required for registration and the laboratory practices that must be followed in conducting these tests.
BP
The data produced by the registrant must be submitted to the EPA for review and evaluation. The
AR
government is not required, nor is it able, however, to perform the product tests that are required of the
DN
manufacturer.
SN
50. The evaluation of each herbicide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is completed
CO
at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of a herbicide has
oO
changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all herbicide products through a
OC
Congressionally-mandated process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1. In order to reevaluate
KH
ttt
these herbicides, the EPA is demanding the completion of additional tests and the submission of data
HN
for the EPA’s review and evaluation.
WH
51. ‘In the case of glyphosate, and therefore Roundup®, the EPA had planned on releasing
BP
its preliminary risk assessment -in relation to the re-registration process-no later than July 2015. The
NH
EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but it delayed releasing the risk assessment |
HWS
pending further review in light of the WHO’s health-related findings.
HD
mm
SCIENTIFIC FRAUD UNDERLYING THE MARKETING AND SALE OF
CO
GLYPHOSATE/ROUNDUP®
Oo
52. Based on early studies that glyphosate could cause cancer in laboratory animals, the
DBD
DR
EPA originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985. After
KHY§
NO
pressure from Monsanto, including contrary studies it provided to the EPA, in 1991 the EPA changed
RO
HNO
its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E). In so classifying glyphosate,
WY
KN
however, the EPA made clear that the designation did not mean the chemical does not cause cancer: “It
F&F
DN
should be emphasized, however, that designation of an agent in Group E is based on the available
DH
BY
evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent
NWN
DN
will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.”
XN
NHN
53. | On two occasions, the EPA found that the laboratories hired by Monsanto to test the
eo
NN
-12-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
toxicity of its Roundup® products for registration purposes committed fraud.
eH
54. In the first instance, Monsanto, in seeking initial registration of Roundup® by EPA,
YN
hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (“IBT”) to perform and evaluate herbicide toxicology studies
WD
relating to Roundup®. IBT performed about 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing
BP
products, including nine of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup®.
A
55. In 1976, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an
DW
inspection of Industrial Bio-Test Industries (“IBT”) that revealed discrepancies between the raw data
SN
and the final report relating to the toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently audited
Oo
IBT; it too found the toxicology studies conducted for the: Roundup® herbicide to be invalid. An EPA
oOo
reviewer stated, after finding “routine falsification of data” at IBT, that it was “hard to believe the
O&O
scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits.”
wets
&§
56. Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983.
HO
57. In the second incident of data falsification, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories in
W
1991 to perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including for Roundup®. In that same year, the owner
BP
of Craven Laboratories and three of its employees were indicted, and later convicted, of fraudulent
nH
laboratory practices in the testing of pesticides and herbicides.
HDB
wm
58. Despite the falsity of the tests that underlie its registration, within a few years of its
YT
mm
launch, Monsanto was marketing Roundup® in 115 countries.
CO
59. Multiple studies have been ghostwritten in part and/or published by Monsanto through
OO
Rm
companies such as Intertek and Exponent, Inc., from 2000 through the present which minimize any
ODO
safety concerns about the use of glyphosate. The studies are used to convince regulators to allow the
—-§
RD
sale of Roundup® and customers to use Roundup®. Such studies include, but are not limited to
NH
DN
Williams (2000); Williams (2012); Kier & Kirkland (2013); Kier (2015); Bus (2016); Chang (2016);
Ww
NHN
and the Intertek Expert Panel Manuscripts. All of these studies have been submitted to and relied upon
HNO
BP
by the public and the EPA in assessing the safety of glyphosate. Through these means, Monsanto has
TW
NO
fraudulently represented that independent scientists have concluded that Glyphosate is safe. In fact,
DO
NO
Monsanto paid these so-called “independent experts,” and Monsanto failed to disclose the significant
nN
NO
role Monsanto had in creating the manuscripts produced by the “independent” experts. Further,
oOo
NO
-13-
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Monsanto has ghostwritten editorials to advocate for the safety of glyphosate in newspapers and
=
magazines for scientists such as Robert Tarone and Henry Miller. Monsanto has also ghostwritten
NO
letters by supposedly independent scientists which have been submitted to regulatory agencies who are
WwW
reviewing the safety of glyphosate.
HP
61. | Monsanto has also violated federal regulations in holding secret ex parte meetings and
A
conversations with certain EPA employees to collude in a strategy to re-register glyphosate and to
DD
quash investigations into the carcinogenicity of glyphosate by other federal agencies such as the
SN
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Monsanto’s close connection with the EPA arises
©
in part from its offering of lucrative consulting gigs to retiring EPA officials. In March 2015, The Joint
Oo
Glyphosate Task Force, at Monsanto’s behest, issued a press release sharply criticizing IARC, stating
OC
eee
that IARC’s conclusion was “baffling” and falsely claiming that “IARC did not consider any new or
KH
unique research findings when making its decision. It appears that only by deciding to exclude certain
HP
available scientific information and by adopting a different approach to interpreting the studies was this
WO
possible.”
FBP
62. Beginning in 2011, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Germany began
NH
me
preparing a study on the safety of glyphosate. Through the Glyphosate Task Force, Defendants were
DH
mm
able to co-opt this study, becoming the sole providers of data and ultimately writing the report, which
HN
was rubber-stamped by the BfR. The Glyphosate Task Force was solely responsible for preparing and
CO
submitting a summary of studies relied upon by the BfR. Defendants have used this self-serving report
OO
DRO
(which they, in fact, wrote) to falsely proclaim the safety of glyphosate. In October 2015, the
CO
Defendants, as members of the Joint Glyphosate Task Force, wrote to the state of California to try to
—|&§
RD
stop California from warning the public about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, arguing that the IARC
RD
NO
classification was mistaken. In January of 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit to stop California from
WY
NY
warning the public about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
F&F
DY
THE IMPORTANCE OF ROUN DUP® TO MONSANTO’S MARKET DOMINANCE
AW
LN
PROFITS
Dn
NH
63. The success of Roundup® was key to Monsanto’s continued reputation and
NH
A
dominance in the marketplace. Largely due to the success of Roundup® sales, Monsanto’s agriculture
ao
NM
-14.
UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
division was out-performing its chemicals division’s operating income, and that gap incréased yearly.
But with its patent for glyphosate expiring in the United States in the year 2000, Monsanto needed a
NY
strategy to maintain its Roundup® market dominance and to ward off impending competition.
WY
64. In response, Monsanto began the development and sale of genetically
FP
engineered Roundup Ready® seeds in 1996. Since Roundup Ready® crops are resistant to glyphosate,
HW
farmers can spray Roundup® onto their fields during the growing season without harming the crop.
DN
This allowed Monsanto to expand its market for Roundup® even further. By 2000, Monsanto’s
SS
biotechnology seeds were planted on more than 80 million acres worldwide, and nearly 70% of
eo
American soybeans were planted from Roundup Ready® seeds. It also secured Monsanto’s dominant
oOo
share of the glyphosate/Roundup® market through a marketing strategy that coupled proprietary
&S
let
Roundup Ready® seeds with continued sales of its Roundup® herbicide.
—-
65. Through a three-pronged strategy of increased production, decreased prices, and
me
NH
by coupling Roundup Ready® seeds with Roundup® herbicide, Roundup® became Monsanto’s most
WD
profitable product. In 2000, Roundup® accounted for almost $2.8 billion in sales, outselling other
S&P
Ow
herbicides by a margin of five to one and accounting for close to half of Monsanto’s revenue. Today,
glyphosate remains one of the world’s largest herbicides by sales volume.
DB
MONSANTO HAS KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT IT FALSELY ADVERTISES THE
TF
mmo
SAFETY OF ROUNDUP®
BSB
66. In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against Monsanto
Ob
based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup ® products. Specifically, the lawsuit
CO
RO
challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based herbicides, including
RN
|
Roundup®, were “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic” to mammals, birds, and fish.
HY
KN
Among the representations the NYAG found deceptive and misleading ab
Preview
. 7 ‘nu WEE ca a ed LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. WITZER, INC. ron Brian D. Witzer (SBN 123277) FILED Michael P. Manapol (SBN 258300) ALAMEDA COUNTY NHN Eric R. Canton (SBN 311666) MAY 22 2019 2393 Venus Drive WD Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 777-5999 F THE SUPERIOR COURT FSP Facsimile: (310) 777-5988 By y UN Attorneys for Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION HN SN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CO FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA oOo — a —s PETER PURIFICACION, an individual, CASENO-RGE19019910 — ) ) No — Plaintiff, ) UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR ) DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL wo — ) VS. ) AB 1. Strict Products Liability-Failure to — MONSANTO COMPANY, a corporation; Warn; —s WM WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC, a California Strict Products Liability-Design Defect; NAMawy limited liability company; WILBUR-ELLIS Peemgences nN ) — FEED, LLC, a California limited liability ) B ’ h of E ties; —_ ) ~ company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, reach ofof Implied Breach Express Warranties; Warranties; and ) Exemplary Damages ) o _ Defendants. [Amount Demanded Exceeds $25,000] Oo — ) Oo nN “ow Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION, by his undersigned counsel, upon personal knowledge with ee respect to their own acts, and upon information and belief with respect to all other matters, aver as i) No follows: NO Ww STATEMENT OF THE CASE No p 1. In 1970, Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY (“Monsanto”) discovered the | WN nN herbicidal properties of glyphosate and began marketing it in products in 1974 under the brand name ho sD Roundup®. Roundup® is a non-selective herbicide used to kill weeds that commonly compete with the bo growing of crops. By 2001, glyphosate had become the most-used active ingredient in American oOo nv -l- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL agriculture with 85-90 millions of pounds used annually. That number grew to 185 million pounds by 2007. As of 2013, glyphosate was the world’s most widely used herbicide. VN 2. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, WD Missouri. It is the world’s leading producer of glyphosate. As of 2009, Monsanto was the world’s FP leading producer of seeds, accounting for 27% of the world seed market. The majority of these seeds TH are of the Roundup Ready® brand. The stated advantage of Roundup Ready® crops is that they DH substantially improve a farmer’s ability to control weeds, since glyphosate can be sprayed in the fields SI during the growing season without harming their crops. In 2010, an estimated 70% of corn and cotton, Oo and 90% of soybean fields in the United States were Roundup Ready®. Oo 10 3. Monsanto’s glyphosate products are registered in 130 countries and approved for use 1] on over 100 different crops. They are ubiquitous in the environment. Numerous studies confirm that 12 glyphosate is found in rivers, streams, and groundwater in agricultural areas where Roundup® is used. 13 It has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the urine of urban dwellers 14 who are not in direct contact with glyphosate. 15 4. On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an 16 agency of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), issued an evaluation of several herbicides, 17 including glyphosate. That evaluation was based, in part, on studies of exposures to glyphosate in 18 several countries around the world, and it traces the health implications from exposure to glyphosate 19 since 2001. 20 5. On July 29, 2015, the IARC issued the formal monograph relating to glyphosate. In that 21 monograph, the IARC Working Group provides a thorough review of the numerous studies and data 22 relating to glyphosate exposure in humans. 23 6. The IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a Group 2A herbicide, which means 24 that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The LARC Working Group concluded that the cancers most 25 associated with glyphosate exposure are non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other haematopoietic cancers, 26 including lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, and multiple 27 myeloma. 28 -2- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7. The IARC evaluation is significant. It confirms what has been believed for years: that —& glyphosate is toxic to humans. Nevertheless, Monsanto since it began selling Roundup®, has NO represented it as safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, Monsanto has repeatedly proclaimed and WY continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-based FS herbicides, including Roundup®, create no unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment. A 8. Upon information and belief, Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC and Wilbur-Ellis Feed, LLC ND were responsible for marketing Roundup and related Monsanto products during the time period in SN question. SH JURISDICTION AND VENUE oO 9. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California | pk Constitution Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes | except those given by statute to other trial courts.” The Statutes under which this action is brought do NY not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. WY 10. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because, based on Bh km information and belief, each is a California resident, a corporation and/or entity organized under the WN laws of the State of California, a foreign corporation or association authorized to do business in et HB California and registered with the California Secretary of State or that has sufficient minimum contacts I ee in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the OB exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play OO wm and substantial justice. CO RN 11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to section 395(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure RD |§ because Plaintiffs injuries occurred in Alameda County, California NO KR 12. Furthermore the Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and WD DR the protections of the laws within the State of California. Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY, a BRO FF corporation, (“Monsanto”) has had sufficient contact such that the exercise of jurisdiction would be HW KN consistent with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. DO NO 13. Plaintiff seeks relief that is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. BN oN NY -3- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PARTIES ry 14. Plaintiff, PETER PURIFICACION is a competent individual over the age of 18, i) resident and citizen of the State of California, who submits to the jurisdiction of this court and alleges bw venue in this Court is proper. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products (“Roundup®”) in the State of California from approximately 1999 to no 2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. . nN 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon allege that as a direct and ~ Proximate. result of Plaintiff's use of Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products (“Roundup®”), supplied and/or distributed by Defendants herein, Plaintiff suffered significant harm, Oo conscious pain and suffering, physical injury and bodily impairment including, but not limited to non- SG Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, other permanent physical deficits, permanent bodily impairment SS eet and other injury sequelae. Plaintiffs injuries required medical intervention to address the adverse YY physical effects and damage caused by Plaintiff's use of Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate- WY containing products (““Roundup®”). FF 16. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct, acts, omissions, fraudulent HH concealments, fraudulent misrepresentations, and fraudulent business practices by Defendants and DH DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiff used and/or was exposed to Roundup® and was diagnosed HS with serious health injuries including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and/or other cancers. Oe ww 10. Asa further direct and proximate result of defects in Roundup® and the wrongful OD conduct, acts, omissions, and fraudulent misrepresentations of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe Oo RD mental and physical pain and have and will sustain permanent injuries and emotional distress, along BRD K§F with economic loss due to medical expenses and living-related expenses as a result of lifestyle changes. NY DN 11. As a further direct and proximate result of defects in Roundup® and the wrongful NO WD conduct, acts, omissions, and fraudulent misrepresentations of Defendants, Plaintiff required medical SF KO intervention in efforts to maintain and/or save Plaintiff. NO WH 18. Plaintiff is an individual who suffered damages as a result of injuries resulting from DN NR Plaintiff's use and/or exposure to Roundup® and is authorized to bring an action for the causes of SN NO actions alleged herein including, but not limited to, injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff resulting oOo BO -4. UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL from Plaintiff's use of Roundup®. Said injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were caused or substantially contributed to by the wrongful conduct of Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. HN 13. The product warnings for Roundup® in effect during the time period Plaintiff used W and/or were exposed to Roundup® were vague, incomplete or otherwise inadequate, both substantively FB and graphically, to alert consumers to the severe health risks associated with Roundup® use and/or WA exposure. DN 14. The Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, inclusive, did not provide SS) adequate warnings to consumers including Plaintiff and the general public about the increased risk of © the serious adverse events described herein. oOo 15. Had Plaintiff been adequately warned by the Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, and OC ted each of them, inclusive, of the potential life-threatening side effects of Roundup®, Plaintiff would not FH have purchased, used, or been exposed to Roundup®. wee HY 16. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff developed serious and dangerous side effects WD including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, related injury sequelae, physical pain and F&F suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered A economic losses and special damages including, but not limited to, loss of earning and medical DH expenses. Plaintiff's general and special damages exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court. ND 17. Plaintiff has reviewed his potential legal claims and causes of action against the OH Defendants and has intentionally chosen only to pursue claims based on state law. Any reference to any OO iw federal agency, regulation or rule is stated solely as background information, and Plaintiff is not DD DR making any claims which raise federal questions. Thus, California state jurisdiction and venue is RD | proper. HY RN 18. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise RD WY of Defendants, DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and who therefore BRO FP sues.said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges OH KN that each of the defendants fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible, negligently or in BP NN some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby NO legally caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will ask leave of oo m 5. UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or capacities of such fictitiously named Fe defendants when the same have been ascertained. YO 19. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent, employee and/or DW representative of every other defendant, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged was acting within Be the course and scope of such agency, employment, service and/or representation and directed, aided and Hh abetted, authorized and/or ratified each and every act and conduct hereinafter alleged. SNH 20. _— At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants was the co-tortfeasor of each of the other defendants. CoO DEFENDANTS Oo 21. Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY (“Monsanto”) is a Delaware corporation with its OC tet headquarters and principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of KH Bayer, a multi-national conglomerate with worldwide operations in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and PPO health care. At all times relevant to this complaint, Monsanto was the entity that discovered the WH mm herbicidal properties of glyphosate and manufactured Roundup®. Monsanto has regularly transacted BR and conducted business within the State of California and has derived substantial revenue from goods NH mm and products, including Roundup®, used in the State of California and employs sales representatives in DH the State of California. Monsanto expected or should have expected its acts to have consequences OY wm within the State of California because it derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce and invoked the benefits and protection of the laws of the State of California. Oo NO 22. Defendant, WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY LLC is a California limited liability ODO corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in San Francisco, California. At all RD EH times relevant to this complaint, Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC sold and distributed Monsanto products, NO NY including Roundup®, within the State of California. YD KR 23. Defendant, WILBUR-ELLIS FEED LLC (with Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC, hereinafter BP KO “Wilbur-Ellis”) is a California limited liability corporation with its headquarters and principal place of UN PY business in San Francisco, California. At all times relevant to this complaint, Wilbur-Ellis Feed LLC bP NN sold and distributed Monsanto products, including Roundup®, within the State of California. Wilbur- pO Ellis is a main distributor of Roundup®, and, upon information and belief, distributed the Roundup® oo BO -6- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL used by Plaintiff. ee 24, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in committing the acts DN alleged herein, each and every managing agent, agent, representative and/or employee of the WY Defendants was working within the course and scope of said agency, representation and/or employment FF with the knowledge, consent, ratification, and authorization of the Defendants and their directors, WA officers and/or managing agents. ND 25. At all relevant times alleged herein, one or more of the corporate Defendants was, and SY now is, a corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California and, therefore, is a So citizen of the State of California. Oo 26. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, associate, O&O thet governmental, or otherwise, of Defendant DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are KS unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff NY is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated herein as a DOE caused WD injuries and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged; and that each DOE FF Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the acts and omissions alleged herein below, and the resulting HW injuries to Plaintiff, and damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to DH allege the true names and capacities of said DOE Defendants when the same are ascertained. HD wim OHO 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, each of the named Defendants and each of the DOE Defendants was the agent, servant, Oo employee and/or joint venturer of the other co-Defendants and other DOE Defendants, and each of DOD RR them, and at all said times, each named Defendant and each DOE Defendant was acting in the full FH course, scope and authority of said agency, service, employment and/or joint venture. NY HR 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that at all times mentioned herein, YW DN Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were also known as, formerly FF RN known as and/or were the successors and/or predecessors in interest/business/product line/or a portion OH KN thereof, assigns, a parent, a subsidiary (wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner), HNO NN affiliate, partner, co-venturer, merged company, alter egos, agents, equitable trustees and/or fiduciaries BH oN of and/or were members in an entity or entities engaged in the funding, researching, studying, NM -7- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL manufacturing, fabricating, designing, developing, labeling, assembling, distributing, supplying, — leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, contracting others for marketing, LN warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of Roundup® and/or other W Monsanto glyphosate-containing products. Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of FS them, are liable for the acts, omissions and tortious conduct of their successors and/or predecessors in UN interest/business/product line/or a portion thereof, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, co- NN venturers, merged companies, alter egos, agents, equitable trustees, fiduciaries and/or their alternate entities in that Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, enjoy the goodwill | ° Oo originally attached to each such alternate entity, acquired the assets or product line (or portion thereof), Oo and in that there has been a virtual destruction of Plaintiff's remedy against each such alternate entity, ee OO and that each such Defendant has the ability to assume the risk spreading role of each such alternate KF entity. YM 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein eee wD mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were and are BB corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of California or the laws of some state DAW or foreign jurisdiction; that each of the said Defendants and DOE Defendants were and are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California and regularly conducted business in California, DQ including in Alameda County. ° we RDO 30. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, GO and each of them, inclusive, were engaged in the business of researching, developing, designing, | licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce RD |& and into the State of California, including in Alameda County, either directly or indirectly through third RD YN parties or related entities, Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products. YW DN 31.. At all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of BP BD them, conducted regular and sustained business and engaged in substantial commerce and business HW NN activity in the State of California, which included but was not limited to selling, marketing and NO NK distributing Roundup® and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products in the State of NHN California, including Alameda County. Co NN -8- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 32. At all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, iy expected or should have expected that their acts would have consequences within the United States of NY America including the State of California, including Alameda County, and said Defendants derived and WD derive substantial revenue therefrom. FB EQUITABLE TOLLING NH 33. Plaintiff has suffered an illness that has a latency period and does not arise until years DN after exposure. Plaintiff had no way of knowing about the risk of serious illness associated with the use YN of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate until made aware that Plaintiff's illness, including oO non-Hodgkin lymphoma could be caused by use and/or exposure to Roundup®. The discovery rule Oo applies, and the statute of limitations was tolled until the day Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that | Plaintiff's illness, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were linked to Plaintiff's use and/or exposure to KH Roundup®. — WH ete 34. Within the time period of any applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff could not have W discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate is BP injurious to human health. | HH 35. Plaintiff did not discover and did not know of facts that would cause a reasonable DR person to suspect the risk associated with the use of and/or exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate nor HI would a reasonable and diligent investigation by Plaintiff have disclosed that Roundup® and CO glyphosate would cause Plaintiff's illness. OO 36... The expiration of any applicable statute of limitations has been equitably tolled by DBD DR reason of Monsanto’s fraudulent misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment and fraudulent conduct. -|& DN Through affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff NY DN the true risks associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup®. NN WD 37. As aresult of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff could not reasonably have known or DYN BF learned through reasonable diligence that Plaintiff had been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that UN N those risks were the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions. DN PO 38. Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitations because of their NO 4 concealment of the truth regarding the safety of Roundup®. Defendants had a duty to disclose the true oo Ny -9. UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL character, quality and nature of Roundup® because this was non-public information over which bot Defendants continue to have exclusive control. Defendants knew that this information was not available KN to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's medical providers and/or health facilities, yet Defendants failed to disclose the WY information to the public, including Plaintiff. FP 39. Defendants had the ability to and did spend enormous amounts of money in furtherance . OA of the purposes of marketing and promoting a profitable product, notwithstanding the known or DBD reasonably knowable risks. Plaintiff and his medical professionals could not have afforded to and could YN not have possibly conducted studies to determine the nature, extent, and identity of related health risks So and were forced to rely on Defendants’ representations. Oo FACTS CO te 40. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicide used in a wide variety of S| herbicidal products around the world. NYO 41. Plants treated with glyphosate translocate the systemic herbicide to their roots, shoot WH regions and fruit, where it interferes with the plant’s ability to form aromatic amino acids necessary for FF mm protein synthesis. Treated plants generally die within two to three days. Because plants absorb OH glyphosate, it cannot be completely removed by washing or peeling produce or by milling, baking, or DH ow brewing grains. YD wm 42. For nearly 40 years, farms across the world have used Roundup® without knowing of CoO the dangers its use poses. we O 43. That is because when Monsanto first introduced Roundup®, it touted glyphosate as a DOD DRO technological breakthrough: it could kill almost every weed without causing harm either to people or to RD FH the environment. Of course, history has shown that not to be true. According to the WHO, the main NY KO chemical ingredient of Roundup--glyphosate--is a probable cause of cancer. Those most at risk are farm WY DT workers and other individuals with workplace exposure to Roundup®, such as workers in garden BP LN centers, nurseries, and landscapers. Agricultural workers are, once again, victims of corporate greed. OH PN Monsanto assured the public that Roundup® was harmless. In order to prove this, Monsanto NO NN championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies that revealed its dangers. Monsanto led a DO prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general wO o -10- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL population that Roundup® was safe. LP THE DISCOVERY OF GLYPHOSATE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ROUNDUP® WD SF _ 44. — The herbicidal properties of glyphosate were discovered in 1970 by Monsanto chemist TDW John Franz. The first glyphosate-based herbicide was introduced to the market in the mid-1970s under DN the brand name Roundup®. From the outset, Monsanto marketed Roundup® as a “safe” general- HN purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use; Osborn & Barr joined or took over CoO these misleading marketing efforts in the early 1990s and continued through 2012. Monsanto still oOo markets Roundup® as safe today. & REGISTRATION OF HERBICIDES UNDER FEDERAL LAW eet | 4S. The manufacture, formulation and distribution of herbicides, such as Roundup®, are NYO regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA” or “Act”), 7 U.S.C. WY § 136 et seg. FIFRA requires that all herbicides be registered with the Environmental Protection F&F Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described by the Act. 7 i WH U.S.C. § 136a (a). | DB 46. Because herbicides are toxic to plants, animals, and humans, at least to some degree, the wm NAN EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other things, a variety of tests to evaluate the CO potential for exposure to herbicides, toxicity to people and other potential non-target organisms, and mm OO other adverse effects on the environment. Registration by the EPA, however, is not an assurance or RD OF finding of safety. The determination the Agency must make in registering or re-registering a product is RO not that the product is “safe,” but rather that use of the product in accordance with its label directions § NY KN “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c) (5) (D). NO WY 47. FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean “any FP KN unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and WO HR environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA thus requires DW NO EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining whether a registration of a product should be NO granted or allowed so that the product may continue to be sold in commerce. oN NN 48. The EPA registered Roundup® for distribution, sale, and manufacture in the United -11- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL States including the State of California. LD 49. FIFRA generally requires the registrant, Monsanto in the case of Roundup®, to conduct health and safety testing of herbicide products. The EPA has protocols governing the conduct of tests WY required for registration and the laboratory practices that must be followed in conducting these tests. BP The data produced by the registrant must be submitted to the EPA for review and evaluation. The AR government is not required, nor is it able, however, to perform the product tests that are required of the DN manufacturer. SN 50. The evaluation of each herbicide product distributed, sold, or manufactured is completed CO at the time the product is initially registered. The data necessary for registration of a herbicide has oO changed over time. The EPA is now in the process of re-evaluating all herbicide products through a OC Congressionally-mandated process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1. In order to reevaluate KH ttt these herbicides, the EPA is demanding the completion of additional tests and the submission of data HN for the EPA’s review and evaluation. WH 51. ‘In the case of glyphosate, and therefore Roundup®, the EPA had planned on releasing BP its preliminary risk assessment -in relation to the re-registration process-no later than July 2015. The NH EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but it delayed releasing the risk assessment | HWS pending further review in light of the WHO’s health-related findings. HD mm SCIENTIFIC FRAUD UNDERLYING THE MARKETING AND SALE OF CO GLYPHOSATE/ROUNDUP® Oo 52. Based on early studies that glyphosate could cause cancer in laboratory animals, the DBD DR EPA originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985. After KHY§ NO pressure from Monsanto, including contrary studies it provided to the EPA, in 1991 the EPA changed RO HNO its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E). In so classifying glyphosate, WY KN however, the EPA made clear that the designation did not mean the chemical does not cause cancer: “It F&F DN should be emphasized, however, that designation of an agent in Group E is based on the available DH BY evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent NWN DN will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances.” XN NHN 53. | On two occasions, the EPA found that the laboratories hired by Monsanto to test the eo NN -12- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL toxicity of its Roundup® products for registration purposes committed fraud. eH 54. In the first instance, Monsanto, in seeking initial registration of Roundup® by EPA, YN hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (“IBT”) to perform and evaluate herbicide toxicology studies WD relating to Roundup®. IBT performed about 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing BP products, including nine of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup®. A 55. In 1976, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an DW inspection of Industrial Bio-Test Industries (“IBT”) that revealed discrepancies between the raw data SN and the final report relating to the toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently audited Oo IBT; it too found the toxicology studies conducted for the: Roundup® herbicide to be invalid. An EPA oOo reviewer stated, after finding “routine falsification of data” at IBT, that it was “hard to believe the O&O scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits.” wets &§ 56. Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983. HO 57. In the second incident of data falsification, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories in W 1991 to perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including for Roundup®. In that same year, the owner BP of Craven Laboratories and three of its employees were indicted, and later convicted, of fraudulent nH laboratory practices in the testing of pesticides and herbicides. HDB wm 58. Despite the falsity of the tests that underlie its registration, within a few years of its YT mm launch, Monsanto was marketing Roundup® in 115 countries. CO 59. Multiple studies have been ghostwritten in part and/or published by Monsanto through OO Rm companies such as Intertek and Exponent, Inc., from 2000 through the present which minimize any ODO safety concerns about the use of glyphosate. The studies are used to convince regulators to allow the —-§ RD sale of Roundup® and customers to use Roundup®. Such studies include, but are not limited to NH DN Williams (2000); Williams (2012); Kier & Kirkland (2013); Kier (2015); Bus (2016); Chang (2016); Ww NHN and the Intertek Expert Panel Manuscripts. All of these studies have been submitted to and relied upon HNO BP by the public and the EPA in assessing the safety of glyphosate. Through these means, Monsanto has TW NO fraudulently represented that independent scientists have concluded that Glyphosate is safe. In fact, DO NO Monsanto paid these so-called “independent experts,” and Monsanto failed to disclose the significant nN NO role Monsanto had in creating the manuscripts produced by the “independent” experts. Further, oOo NO -13- UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Monsanto has ghostwritten editorials to advocate for the safety of glyphosate in newspapers and = magazines for scientists such as Robert Tarone and Henry Miller. Monsanto has also ghostwritten NO letters by supposedly independent scientists which have been submitted to regulatory agencies who are WwW reviewing the safety of glyphosate. HP 61. | Monsanto has also violated federal regulations in holding secret ex parte meetings and A conversations with certain EPA employees to collude in a strategy to re-register glyphosate and to DD quash investigations into the carcinogenicity of glyphosate by other federal agencies such as the SN Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Monsanto’s close connection with the EPA arises © in part from its offering of lucrative consulting gigs to retiring EPA officials. In March 2015, The Joint Oo Glyphosate Task Force, at Monsanto’s behest, issued a press release sharply criticizing IARC, stating OC eee that IARC’s conclusion was “baffling” and falsely claiming that “IARC did not consider any new or KH unique research findings when making its decision. It appears that only by deciding to exclude certain HP available scientific information and by adopting a different approach to interpreting the studies was this WO possible.” FBP 62. Beginning in 2011, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Germany began NH me preparing a study on the safety of glyphosate. Through the Glyphosate Task Force, Defendants were DH mm able to co-opt this study, becoming the sole providers of data and ultimately writing the report, which HN was rubber-stamped by the BfR. The Glyphosate Task Force was solely responsible for preparing and CO submitting a summary of studies relied upon by the BfR. Defendants have used this self-serving report OO DRO (which they, in fact, wrote) to falsely proclaim the safety of glyphosate. In October 2015, the CO Defendants, as members of the Joint Glyphosate Task Force, wrote to the state of California to try to —|&§ RD stop California from warning the public about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, arguing that the IARC RD NO classification was mistaken. In January of 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit to stop California from WY NY warning the public about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. F&F DY THE IMPORTANCE OF ROUN DUP® TO MONSANTO’S MARKET DOMINANCE AW LN PROFITS Dn NH 63. The success of Roundup® was key to Monsanto’s continued reputation and NH A dominance in the marketplace. Largely due to the success of Roundup® sales, Monsanto’s agriculture ao NM -14. UNLIMITED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL division was out-performing its chemicals division’s operating income, and that gap incréased yearly. But with its patent for glyphosate expiring in the United States in the year 2000, Monsanto needed a NY strategy to maintain its Roundup® market dominance and to ward off impending competition. WY 64. In response, Monsanto began the development and sale of genetically FP engineered Roundup Ready® seeds in 1996. Since Roundup Ready® crops are resistant to glyphosate, HW farmers can spray Roundup® onto their fields during the growing season without harming the crop. DN This allowed Monsanto to expand its market for Roundup® even further. By 2000, Monsanto’s SS biotechnology seeds were planted on more than 80 million acres worldwide, and nearly 70% of eo American soybeans were planted from Roundup Ready® seeds. It also secured Monsanto’s dominant oOo share of the glyphosate/Roundup® market through a marketing strategy that coupled proprietary &S let Roundup Ready® seeds with continued sales of its Roundup® herbicide. —- 65. Through a three-pronged strategy of increased production, decreased prices, and me NH by coupling Roundup Ready® seeds with Roundup® herbicide, Roundup® became Monsanto’s most WD profitable product. In 2000, Roundup® accounted for almost $2.8 billion in sales, outselling other S&P Ow herbicides by a margin of five to one and accounting for close to half of Monsanto’s revenue. Today, glyphosate remains one of the world’s largest herbicides by sales volume. DB MONSANTO HAS KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT IT FALSELY ADVERTISES THE TF mmo SAFETY OF ROUNDUP® BSB 66. In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Ob based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup ® products. Specifically, the lawsuit CO RO challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-on glyphosate-based herbicides, including RN | Roundup®, were “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic” to mammals, birds, and fish. HY KN Among the representations the NYAG found deceptive and misleading ab