This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 07/15/2022 at 11:32:48 (UTC).

Holsapple v. Monsanto Company

Case Summary

On June 8, 2022, Stephanie Holsapple (“Plaintiff”), represented by John C. Enochs of Morris Bart, P.L.C. - New Orleans, filed a product liability lawsuit against Monsanto Company (“Defendant”), seeking compensatory damages for alleged negligence. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi with Judges Daniel P. Jordan, III, and F. Keith Ball presiding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “in 1970, Defendant Monsanto Company, Inc. discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate and began marketing it in products in 1974 under the brand name Roundup®. Roundup is a non-selective herbicide used to kill weeds that commonly compete with the growing of crops.”

Plaintiff further alleged that “the IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a Group 2A herbicide, which means that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. The IARC Working Group concluded that the cancers most associated with glyphosate exposure are Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other haematopoietic cancers.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “Monsanto, since it began selling Roundup, has represented it as safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, Monsanto and has repeatedly proclaimed and continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, create no unreasonable risks to human health”

Plaintiff also alleged that “despite knowledge to the contrary, Defendant maintains that there is no evidence that Roundup is genotoxic, that regulatory authorities and independent experts are in agreement that Roundup is not genotoxic, and that there is no evidence that Roundup is genotoxic.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged that “Glyphosate and Roundup in particular have long been associated with carcinogenicity and the development of numerous forms of cancer, including, but not limited to, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.”

Plaintiff claimed that “Defendant continued to issue broad and sweeping statements suggesting that Roundup was, and is, safer than ordinary household items such as table salt, despite a lack of scientific support for the accuracy and validity of these statements and, in fact, voluminous evidence to the contrary”

Plaintiff then claimed that “these statements and representations have been made with the intent of inducing Plaintiff, the agricultural community, and the public at large to purchase and increase the use of Defendant’s Roundup for Defendant’s pecuniary gain, and in fact, did induce Plaintiff to use Roundup.”

Plaintiff alleged that “Defendant made these statements with complete disregard and reckless indifference to the safety of Plaintiff and the general public,” and that “Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn Plaintiff of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup.”

Plaintiff also claimed that “Plaintiff sprayed Roundup on a regular basis and followed all safety and precautionary warnings during the course of use,” and that “Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with a form of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2021.” 

Plaintiff further claimed that “the development of Plaintiff’s Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant’s Roundup products.”

Plaintiff presented seven claims for relief alleging negligence, breach of duty under the Mississippi Product Liability Act, manufacturing and design defect, inadequate warning, non-conformity to express warranty, fraud, misrepresentation and violation of Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested compensatory damages, economic damages and punitive damages, in addition to litigation costs and attorney fees.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:22-CV-00312

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2022

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

Judge Details

Referral Judge

F. Keith Ball

Presiding Judge

Daniel P. Jordan, III

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Stephanie Holsapple

Defendant

Monsanto Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

John C. Enochs

Attorney at MORRIS BART, P.L.C. - New Orleans

601 Poydras St., 24Th Floor

New Orleans, LA 70130-6036

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) Summons Issued as to Monsanto Company. (ND) (Entered: 06/08/2022)

#3

(#3) COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ND) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

#4

(#4) CERTIFIED COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ND) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/14/2022
  • DocketNOTICE: Case transferred from Mississippi Southern has been opened in California Northern District as case 3:22-cv-04119, filed 07/14/2022. (ND) (Entered: 07/14/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2022
  • DocketRemark : Notified IT Department to transfer case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ND) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) CERTIFIED COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ND) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ND) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to Monsanto Company. (ND) (Entered: 06/08/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Monsanto Company ( Filing fee $ 402 paid; receipt number AMSSDC-4856257 ), filed by Stephanie Holsapple. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ND) (Entered: 06/08/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Monsanto Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer JOHN C. ENOCHS