`
`
`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