Mendoza v. Monsanto Company

Background

Yolanda Mendoza’s case was originally filed in the Eastern District of California and transferred to the Northern District of California as part of the multidistrict litigation concerning Roundup products. The cases generally allege that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the alleged cancer risk. Mendoza’s claims also allege that Roundup is defective because it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The case was included in a settlement agreement between Bayer, which the opinion says now owns Monsanto, and a law firm. The parties later announced that the settlement would not be completed. The court stated that discovery was complete and that the case was ready for trial.

Prior rulings in the multidistrict litigation

The court first addressed general causation—whether Roundup is capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma at exposure levels people could be expected to experience. After hearings concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under the Daubert standard, the court ruled that some plaintiffs’ experts satisfied that standard and that a reasonable jury could find that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The court then addressed specific causation—whether Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma in particular plaintiffs. In the bellwether cases, the court denied Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on specific causation, ruling that a reasonable jury could find that Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ illness. The court nevertheless ruled that portions of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony were scientifically unreliable and could not be presented to the jury.

For the Wave 1 cases, including Mendoza’s case, the court applied its earlier causation rulings. It denied Monsanto’s motion to exclude the specific-causation experts, while identifying certain opinions the experts could not offer at trial. It also denied Monsanto’s motions for summary judgment on general causation and non-causation grounds. Some non-causation and other evidentiary issues remained subject to the trial judge’s consideration.

Guidance from the Hardeman trial

The court described the earlier Hardeman trial, which involved claims it considered effectively the same as Mendoza’s. A jury found that Roundup caused Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The court later reduced the punitive-damages award, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the verdict and post-trial rulings.

The court said the Hardeman rulings could guide the Eastern District of California judge on motions to limit evidence, damages, and jury instructions. The parties would need to refile motions in limine—motions asking the court to decide evidentiary issues before trial—that were unrelated to causation.

Ruling and effect

Judge Vince Chhabria suggested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand Mendoza’s case to the Eastern District of California. The stated reasons were that the settlement would not be completed, discovery was complete, summary judgment had been denied for Monsanto, and the case was ready for trial.

The clerk was directed to provide the suggestion of remand to the clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the clerk of the Eastern District of California. The opinion does not state that the Panel had already ordered the case remanded.