throbber
Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:1
`
`
`MILSTEIN JACKSON
`
`
`FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
`Gillian L. Wade, State Bar No. 229124
`
`
`gwade@mjfwlaw.com
`
`Sara D. Avila, State Bar No. 263213
`
`savila@mjfwlaw.com
`Marc A. Castaneda, State Bar No. 299001
`mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
`10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 396-9600
`Fax: (310) 396-9635
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES WEEKS, individually and on
`behalf of all others situated;
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-6780
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`1. Violations of the Consumer Legal
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. C. §§ 1750, et
`seq.
`
`2. Violations of Unfair Competition Law,
`‘Unfair’ and ‘Fraudulent’ Prongs,
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`3. Violations of Unfair Competition Law,
`‘Unlawful’ Prong, Cal. Bus. & Prof. C.
`§§ 17200, et seq.
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
`through 100, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`//
`//
`//
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:2
`
`
`Plaintiff JAMES WEEKS (“Plaintiff”), by his undersigned counsel, on behalf
`
`of himself and all persons similarly situated, brings this Class Action Complaint
`against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot” or “Defendant”).
`Plaintiff alleges the following upon information and belief, except for those
`allegations that pertain to Plaintiff, which are based on Plaintiffs’ personal
`knowledge:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this action both on
`his own behalf and on behalf of the Class defined below, comprised of all individuals
`similarly situated within the State of California, to redress the unlawful and deceptive
`practices employed by Home Depot in connection with its sale of the herbicide
`Roundup®, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is known to
`be a Class 2A herbicide, meaning it is probably carcinogenic to humans.
`2.
`Defendant markets, advertises, distributes and sells various formulations
`of Roundup® which Plaintiff maintains are defective, dangerous to human health,
`unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce without proper warnings
`and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
`3.
`the
`Defendant’s reckless, knowing, and/or willful omission of
`carcinogenic and/or otherwise harmful components to Roundup® products constitutes
`unlawful and deceptive business practices violate California’s Consumer Legal
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. C. §§ 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”) and the Unfair
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”).
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`4.
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
`Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). Defendant is either incorporated and/or has its
`principal place of business outside the state in which Plaintiff and members of the
`proposed Class reside. Furthermore, there are more than 100 Class Members and the
`amount-in-controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`11
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is
`a foreign corporation authorized to do business in California and registered with the
`California Secretary of State, and has sufficient minimum contacts with California or
`otherwise intentionally avails itself of the laws and markets of California, through the
`sale and distribution of its Roundup® products in California, to render the exercise of
`jurisdiction by the California courts permissible.
`6.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c) because
`Defendant’s improper conduct alleged in this complaint occurred in, was directed
`from, and/or emanated from this judicial district, because Defendant has caused harm
`to Class Members residing in this district, and/or because Defendant is subject to
`personal jurisdiction in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`7.
`Plaintiff James Weeks is an individual, a resident of Oxnard, California,
`and a member of the Class alleged herein.
`8.
`Defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. is a Delaware corporation,
`California Secretary of State Registry No. C1648357, in “active” status, with a
`principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. is the
`largest home improvement retailer in the United States and is engaged in the
`marketing, sale, and distribution of the herbicide Roundup®, with the active
`ingredient glyphosate. All formulations of Roundup® are manufactured by non-
`parties Monsanto Company, Bayer Corporation, and/or Bayer AG.
`9.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 1 through 100 are
`subsidiaries, partners, or other entities that were involved in the sale of the herbicide
`Roundup®. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1
`through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such
`Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE
`is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of
`
`22
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:4
`
`
`Court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE
`Defendants when such identities become known.
`“Roundup” refers to all formulations of the Roundup® products sold by
`10.
`Defendant, including, but not limited to, Roundup Landscape Weed Preventer,
`Roundup Ready-To-Use Killer III with Sure Shot Wand, Roundup Ready-To-Use
`Weed & Grass Killer III with Comfort Wand, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass
`Killer III with Pump ‘N Go 2 Sprayer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer
`III, Roundup Precision Gel Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup for Lawns Bug
`Destroyer, Roundup For Lawns Ready-to-Use, Roundup For Lawns1 Ready-to-Spray,
`Roundup For Lawns3 Ready-to-Spray, Roundup For Lawns2 Concentrate, Roundup
`for Lawns Crabgrass Destroyer1, Roundup Ready-To-Use Max Control 365 with
`Comfort Wand, Roundup Concentrate MAX Control 365, Roundup Ready-To-Use
`Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer II with Comfort Wand,
`Roundup Ready-To-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed
`Preventer II with Pump ‘N Go 2 Sprayer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Extended Control
`Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer II with Trigger Sprayer, Roundup
`Concentrate Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup
`Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer with Trigger Sprayer, Roundup
`Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer with Comfort Wand, Roundup
`Concentrate Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
`Concentrate Plus, Roundup For Lawns2 Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
`Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup
`Concentrate MAX Control 365, Roundup Concentrate Extended Control Weed &
`Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy Plus Tough
`Brush Killer, Roundup Pro No Leak Pump Backpack Sprayer (4 Gallon), Roundup
`Pro Sprayer for Commercial Use (2 or 3 Gallon), Roundup No Leak Pump Backpack
`Sprayer (4 Gallon), Roundup Pro No Leak Pump Backpack Sprayer with Stainless
`Steel Components and Deluxe Comfort Harness (4 Gallon), Roundup Multi-Use
`
`33
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`Home and Garden Sprayer (1, 2, or 3 Gallon), or any other formulation thereof
`containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
`11. Defendant transacted and conducted business within the State of
`California that relates to the allegations in this Complaint.
`12. Defendant derived substantial revenue from goods and products used in
`the State of California.
`13. Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
`activities within the State of California, thus invoking the benefits and protections of
`its laws.
`14. Defendant advertises and sell goods, specifically Roundup, in Ventura
`County, California.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A. Warnings on Roundup Products at Defendant’s Retail Locations are
`Inadequate.
`15. Roundup is sold at Home Depot locations throughout the United States,
`including California. Its labeling is not altered between manufacture and points of
`sale at Defendant’s retail locations. An exemplar picture of the Roundup’s front label
`is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.”
`16. As indicated on Roundup’s labeling, glyphosate is the active ingredient
`in Roundup. Id. Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide that inhibits plant growth
`through interference with the production of essential aromatic amino acids. It was
`discovered to be an herbicide in 1970 and was first brought into the market as
`Roundup by Monsanto Company in 1974.
`17. Roundup’s labeling provides certain warnings, such as, “Keep Out of
`Reach of Children” and “Caution.” But the only identified hazard identified is that it
`may cause “moderate eye irritation.”
`
`44
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`18. This warning gives the false impression eye irritation is the only risk
`posed by Roundup, when in fact, glyphosate is known to have links to cancer, as
`discussed more fully herein.
`19. Defendant thus fails to warn consumers of the potential carcinogenic
`risks of using Roundup.
`20. Defendant’s conduct is especially egregious considering it also fails to
`include proper use instructions for Roundup.
`21. As a retail distributor of Roundup, Defendant is provided a Safety Data
`Sheet (“SDS”)1 by the manufacturer, which provides detailed information as to the
`products’ hazards.
`22. The SDS for Roundup advises, “[i]nhalation and skin contact are
`expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to glyphosate.”2
`23. Despite its knowledge of the SDS, Defendant does not warn consumers
`they may be exposed to glyphosate through inhalation and skin contact.
`24. Defendant further omits proper use instructions, e.g. advising consumers
`to use a gas mask respirator when using Roundup.
`25. Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, who have purchased Roundup
`would not have done so had they known of its carcinogenic risks, or had Defendant
`provided a warning on how to minimize these risks.
`26. Defendant was aware of the present and substantial danger to consumers
`while using or misusing the Product in an intended and reasonably foreseeable way
`and has not disclosed the potential risks to consumers.
`
`1 The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)), revised in
`2012, requires that the chemical manufacturer, distributor, or importer provide Safety
`Data Sheets (SDSs) (formerly MSDSs or Material Safety Data Sheets) for each
`hazardous chemical to downstream users to communicate information on these
`hazards. The information contained in the SDS is largely the same as the MSDS,
`except now the SDSs are required to be presented in a consistent user-friendly, 16-
`section format. This brief provides guidance to help workers who handle hazardous
`chemicals to become familiar with the format and understand the contents of the
`SDSs.
`2 Material Safety Data Sheet, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-To-Use, #7070,
`EPA REG. NO.: 71995-23 PN: 7037 (October 31, 2000).
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`55
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The IARC Classification of Glyphosate.
`27. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an
`intergovernmental cancer agency within the World Health Organization (“WHO”) of
`the United Nations, was tasked in 2015 with conducting and coordinating research
`into the causes of cancer it pertained to glyphosate.
`28.
`In March 2015, an IARC “Working Group” of 17 experts from 11
`countries convened to evaluate several insecticides and herbicides, including
`diazinon, tetrachlorvinphos, malathion, parathion, and glyphosate. The evaluation
`was based on a cumulative review of all publicly available and pertinent scientific
`studies. Some of the studies pertained to people exposed to through their jobs, such as
`farmers. Others were experimental studies on cancer and cancer-related effects in
`experimental systems. The IARC Working Group’s full monograph was published on
`July 29, 2015.
`29.
`In its monograph, the IARC Working Group classified glyphosate as a
`Class 2A herbicide, which means it is probably carcinogenic to humans. It concluded
`non-Hodgkin lymphoma was most associated with glyphosate exposure.
`30. The IARC also found that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal
`damage in human cells.
`31. The IARC’s conclusions were consistent with scientific developments
`that had occurred in prior decades.
`C.
`Early Studies on Roundup’s Carcinogenic Properties.
`32. Defendant should have been aware of glyphosate’s carcinogenic
`properties before or during the Class Period (the four years preceding the filing of
`this Complaint).
`33. On March 4, 1985, a group of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
`(“EPA”) Toxicology Branch conducted a study to evaluate the potential oncogenic
`(i.e., potential to cause cancer) responses on mice. The group published a
`
`66
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:8
`
`
`memorandum, which “classified Glyphosate as a Category C oncogen,” meaning it is
`a possible human carcinogen.
`34. The findings of the 1985 EPA study were initially challenged by the
`EPA in 1991, which published a Memorandum entitled, “Second Peer Review of
`Glyphosate.” The Memorandum changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E
`(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Yet two peer review committee
`members did not concur with the conclusions, and the Memorandum itself
`“emphasized however, that designation of an agent in Group E is based on the
`available evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a
`definitive conclusion
`that
`the agent will not be a carcinogen under any
`circumstances.”
`35. However, further studies and developments indicated glyphosate indeed
`posed (and still poses) a definite carcinogenic effect on humans.
`36.
`In 1996,
`the New York Attorney General sued MONSANTO
`COMPANY for false and misleading advertising by touting its glyphosate-based
`Roundup products as, e.g., “safer than table salt” and "practically non-toxic" to
`mammals, birds, and fish.
`37. On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of
`Discontinuance with New York Attorney General, in which Monsanto agreed to alter
`the advertising, removing from advertisements that represent, directly or by
`implication, that the weed killers were biodegradable and environmentally friendly.
`Monsanto also agreed to pay $50,000 toward New York’s costs of pursuing the case.
`At the time, New York was the only state to object to the advertising claims.
`38.
`In 1997, Chris Clements, et al. published a study entitled, “Genotoxicity
`of Select Herbicides in Rana catesbeiana Tadpoles Using the Alkaline Single-Cell
`Gel DNA Electrophoresis (Comet) Assay.” Genotoxicity refers to the property of
`chemical agents which cause damage to genetic information within a cell causing
`mutations, which may lead to cancer. In Clements’ publication, tadpoles were
`
`77
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:9
`
`
`exposed to various herbicides, including Roundup, for a 24-hour period. Roundup-
`treated tadpoles showed “significant DNA damage when compared with unexposed
`control animals.”
`39.
`In 1999, Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson published a study entitled,
`“A Case–Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides,”
`which consisted of a population-based case–control study in northern and middle
`Sweden encompassing 442 cases and twice as many controls was performed.
`Exposure data were ascertained by comprehensive questionnaires, and
`the
`questionnaires were supplemented by telephone interviews. The results indicated
`exposure to glyphosate and other herbicides yielded increased risks for Non-Hodgkin
`Lymphoma (“NHL”).
`40.
`In 2002, Julie Marc, et al. published a study entitled, “Pesticide
`Roundup Provokes Cell Division Dysfunction at the Level of CDK1/Cyclin B
`Activation.” The study found Defendant’s Roundup caused delays in the cell cycles
`of sea urchins. It further noted the deregulations of cell cycle checkpoints are directly
`linked to genomic instability, which can generate diseases and cause cancer. The
`findings led to the conclusion Roundup “causes changes in cell cycle regulation that
`may raise questions about the effect of this pesticide on human health.”
`41.
`In 2003, A. J. De Roos, et al. published a study entitled, “Integrative
`assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among
`men,” which “[r]eported use of several individual pesticides was associated with
`increased NHL incidence, including . . . glyphosate. A subanalysis of these
`‘potentially carcinogenic’ pesticides suggested a positive trend of risk with exposure
`to increasing numbers.”
`42.
`In 2004, Julie Marc, et al. published another study entitled, “Glyphosate-
`based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation.” In that study, which tested Roundup
`3plus on sea urchin eggs, determined “glyphosate-based pesticides are clearly of
`human health concern by inhalation in the vicinity of spraying,” given the “molecular
`
`88
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`link between glyphosate and cell cycle dysregulation.” It observed, “roundup may be
`related to increased frequency of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among farmers, citing
`the study by A. J. De Roos., et al.
`43.
`In 2008, Mikael Eriksson, et al. published a study entitled, “Pesticide
`exposure as risk factor for NHL including histopathological subgroup analysis,”
`based on a case-control study of exposure to various pesticides as a risk factor for
`NHL. Eriksson’s study strengthened previous associations between glyphosate and
`NHL.
`
`44.
`In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that Monsanto had not told the
`truth about the safety of Roundup. The French court affirmed an earlier judgment that
`Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide Roundup as “biodegradable” and that it
`“left the soil clean.”
`45. Also in 2009, Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study
`entitled, “Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical,
`embryonic, and placental cells,” which examined the effects of four different
`Roundup formulations on human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells—at
`dilution levels far below agricultural recommendations. The study found the
`formations caused cell death in a few hours in a cumulative manner, caused DNA
`damage, and found that the formulations inhibit cell respiration. In addition, it was
`shown the mixture of the components used as Roundup adjuvants, particularly POEA
`(polyoxyethyleneamine) amplified the action of the glyphosate. The Roundup
`adjuvants actually changed human cell permeability and increased the toxicity of
`glyphosate alone.
`D. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides,
`Throughout the World.
`46. Following the IARC’s report on glyphosate, several countries have
`issued outright bans or restrictions on glyphosate herbicides, including Roundup.
`
`Including Roundup, are Banned
`
`99
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`
`47.
`In May 2015, the Netherlands banned all non-commercial use of
`See
`https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/30/why-the-
`glyphosate.
`netherlands-just-banned-monsantos-glyphosate-based-herbicides/.
`48.
`In 2016, Italy adopted a law prohibiting the use of glyphosate in areas
`frequented by the public or by "vulnerable groups" including children and the elderly
`See
`and in
`the
`pre-harvest
`phase
`in
`agriculture.
`https://www.soilassociation.org/news/2016/august/italy-bans-toxic-glyphosate/.
`49.
`In June 2017, the Flemish government approved a ban on glyphosate for
`See
`individual-use.
`https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-
`news/43150/flemish-government-approves-ban-on-glyphosate-for-individuals/.
`50.
`In September 2018, the agriculture ministry of the Czech Republic stated
`the country would ban the blanket use of glyphosate as a weedkiller and as a drying
`See
`agent.
`https://phys.org/news/2018-09-czech-republic-restrict-glyphosate-
`January 1, 2019. See
`weedkiller.html. The ban came
`into effect on
`http://www.arc2020.eu/czech-out-this-roundabout-way-to-not-ban-roundup/.
`51.
`In October 2018, the Indian state of Punjab banned the sale of
`See
`glyphosate.
`https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/punjab-
`government-bans-sale-of-herbicide/article25314146.ece. And in February of 2019,
`the Indian state of Kerala followed suit, issuing a ban on the sale, distribution and use
`of glyphosate. See https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-government-bans-
`glyphosate-deadly-weed-killer-96220.
`52.
`In January 2019, French authorities banned the sale of Roundup
`following a court ruling that regulators failed to take safety concerns into account
`See
`when
`clearing
`the
`widely
`used
`herbicide.
`https://www.france24.com/en/20190116-weedkiller-roundup-banned-france-after-
`court-ruling. In April 2019, a French appeals court ruled Bayer’s Monsanto business
`was liable for the health problems of a farmer who inhaled Roundup. See
`fhttps://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/04/11/523456.htm.
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`10
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
`
`53.
`In March 2019, Vietnam announced it has banned the import of all
`glyphosate-based herbicides. See https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/03/25/vietnam-
`bans-import-of-glyphosate-herbicides-after-us-cancer-trial-verdict/#.XS-xCT9Kh9O.
`54. On July 2, 2019, Austria’s lower house of parliament passed a bill
`banning all uses of glyphosate. According to recent reports it is likely to pass
`See
`Austria’s
`upper
`house
`and
`is
`poised
`to
`become
`law.
`https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-glyphosate/austrian-parliament-backs-eus-
`first-total-ban-of-weedkiller-glyphosate-idUSKCN1TX1JR.
`55. Several municipalities and regions in Spain, the United Kingdom, and
`the United States, have also banned glyphosate herbicides.
`E. Monsanto Loses Three Verdicts after Roundup is Found to Cause Cancer
`in Humans.
`56. On August 10, 2018, a unanimous California jury in Johnson v.
`Monsanto Co., No. CGC16550128 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of S.F.) held MONSANTO
`COMPANY’s Roundup and Ranger Pro herbicides were unsafe and were a
`substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. The jury also found MONSANTO
`COMPANY failed to adequately warn customers of the risks associated with its
`Roundup and stronger Ranger Pro products, and that the company acted with malice
`or oppression.
`57. On March 27, 2019, a unanimous California jury in Hardemon v.
`Monsanto Co., No. 3:16-mc-80232 (N.D. Cal.) found MONSANTO COMPANY
`liable for failing to warn Roundup could cause cancer, liable for negligence, and
`liable in a design defect claim.
`58. On May 13, 2019, a California jury found MONSANTO COMPANY
`likely caused a couple’s cancer in Pilliod v. Monsanto Co., No. RF17862702 (Cal.
`Super. Ct., Cnty. of Alameda). The jury found on a preponderance of the evidence
`Roundup was a significant contributing factor in causing the plaintiff’s NHL.
`//
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`11
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Plaintiff’s Purchase of Roundup from Defendant.
`59. Plaintiff routinely purchased a Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass
`Killer product during the Class Period from a Home Depot retail location in Ventura
`County, California. Plaintiff recalls paying approximately $12-$15 per bottle.
`60. When Plaintiff purchased Roundup, nothing on the product’s label or in
`Defendant’s advertising, marketing (including weekly ads, mailers and in-store Point
`of Sale (POS) displays) made any indication that the product or its ingredients
`contained any carcinogenic agents or posed the risk of cancer.
`61. Had Plaintiff had known the carcinogenic properties of Roundup and its
`links to cancer at the time of purchase, he would not have bought it.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`62. Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and all members of the
`following Class (the “Class”):
`All persons who purchased, in California, at least one Roundup
`product from Home Depot, for personal use and not for re-sale.
`63. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation
`and discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by
`amendment.
`64. Specifically excluded from the proposed Class is Defendant, its officers,
`directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives,
`employees, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated
`with Defendant and/or its officers and/or directors, or any of them. Also excluded
`from the proposed Class are the Court, the Court’s immediate family and Court staff.
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) Factors
`65. Numerosity. Membership in the Class is so numerous that separate
`joinder of each member is impracticable. The precise number of Class members is
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`12
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`
`unknown at this time but can be readily determined from Defendant’s records.
`Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are tens of thousands of persons in the Class.
`66. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately
`represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained
`counsel highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation and intends
`to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff is a member of the Class described
`herein and does not have interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the other
`members of the Class.
`67. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of
`the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the Class purchased Defendant’s Roundup
`products which fail to disclose the carcinogenic properties of Roundup and/or its
`active ingredient glyphosate and fail to provide proper use instructions.
`68. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact.
`There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to all Class
`Members sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a), and that control this litigation and
`predominate over any individual issues for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). Included within
`the common questions are:
`a. Whether the Roundup products (and/or their ingredients) contain
`carcinogenic properties and/or poses a risk of cancer;
`b. Whether the existing labels on the Roundup products were adequate;
`c. Whether Defendant misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts to
`Plaintiff and Class members regarding the carcinogenic properties of
`Roundup and its ingredients;
`d. Whether Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff and members of the Class
`of Roundup’s carcinogenic properties
`is material
`to reasonable
`consumers;
`e. Whether Defendant’s marketing, distribution and/or sale of Roundup is
`likely to deceive reasonable consumers;
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`13
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`
`f. Whether Defendant’s marketing, distribution and/or sale of Roundup
`caused Plaintiffs and the Class to suffer economic harm;
`g. Whether Defendant violated California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.;
`h. Whether Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code
`section 17200, et seq.;
`i. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief requiring
`Defendant to disclose Roundup’s carcinogenic properties and/or its risk
`of causing cancer;
`j. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution and if so, the appropriate
`measure;
`k. Whether compensatory, consequential and punitive damages ought to be
`awarded to Plaintiff and Class members;
`l. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs,
`and in what amount; and.
`m. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or other
`equitable relief.
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2) Factors
`69. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class,
`thereby making final injunctive relief and/or corresponding declaratory relief
`appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. The prosecution of separate actions
`by individual Class members would create the risk of inconsistent or varying
`adjudications with respect to individual member of the Class that would establish
`incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.
`70.
`Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further fraudulent and unfair
`business practices by Defendant. Money damages alone will not afford adequate and
`complete relief, and injunctive relief is necessary to restrain Defendant from
`continuing to conceal the carcinogenic properties of their Roundup products and the
`cancer risks posed to consumers.
`
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-FMO-AS Document 1 Filed 08/05/19 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3) Factors
`71. Common Issues Predominate: As set forth in detail hereinabove,
`common issues of fact and law predominate because Plaintiff’s claims are based on a
`deceptive common course of conduct. Whether Defendant’s conduct is likely to
`deceive reasonable consumers and violate the CLRA and the UCL is common to all
`members of the Cl

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket