Bayer appeared before a federal judge Thursday in an effort to dismantle a large block of consolidated lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer — a move the company says is justified by a recent win at the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria held a status conference in San Francisco to decide how to move forward with nearly 4,000 cases after the Supreme Court ruled last month that plaintiffs cannot sue Bayer on the grounds that Roundup’s warning label failed to alert users to cancer risks. Bayer contends that ruling should result in the entire consolidated federal case being thrown out.
The company has also noted that the Supreme Court decision is unlikely to impact more than 60,000 similar lawsuits currently pending in state courts. Bayer is working to resolve most of those cases through a proposed $7.25 billion settlement that a Missouri judge is set to review in August.
Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its purchase of Monsanto in 2018. The company maintains that decades of scientific research have shown that glyphosate, Roundup’s primary active ingredient, is safe and does not cause cancer.
The status conference had originally been set for Tuesday, but Judge Chhabria pushed it back two days so both sides could provide more detailed information about how the Supreme Court ruling affects the pending cases.
The Supreme Court’s decision centered on the idea that plaintiffs cannot argue Roundup’s label was inadequate under state laws because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already determined the label does not need to include a cancer warning.
In court filings, Bayer argued that so-called “failure to warn” claims are the foundation of the lawsuits, and that the consolidated federal litigation has “no reason to exist” in the wake of the ruling. Bayer further argued that other claims raised by plaintiffs — including negligence and design defect — are simply variations of the same core argument that Roundup was sold without proper warning.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs pushed back, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling only addressed Roundup’s label and does not eliminate other types of claims commonly brought in Roundup personal injury cases, such as design defect and negligence.
Bayer’s Monsanto unit did not respond to requests for comment. Plaintiff attorney Robin Greenwald stated that the consolidated litigation should not be shut down.
In an order issued Monday, Judge Chhabria said both sides had given “unsatisfying” initial answers to his questions about how the cases should proceed. He indicated that both parties “should be prepared to plow ahead” on difficult legal questions, rather than assuming all cases would either be dismissed or allowed to continue.
The case is titled In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 16-md-02741. Plaintiffs are represented by Robin Greenwald and Robert Quigley of Weitz & Luxenberg, and David Dickens of The Miller Firm. Monsanto is represented by Brian Stekloff and Rakesh Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff.
