throbber
Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:1365
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`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 Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`JAMES WEEKS, individually and on
`behalf of all others situated;
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06780 JWH(ASx)
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1. Violations of Unfair Competition
`Law’s, ‘Unfair’ Prong, Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. C. §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`//
`//
`//
`//
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:1366
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff JAMES WEEKS (“Plaintiff”), by his undersigned counsel, on behalf
`
`of himself and all persons similarly situated, brings this Second Amended Class
`Action Complaint against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot” or
`“Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`Plaintiff brings this action both on his own behalf and on behalf of a class
`1.
`of similarly situated consumers as defined below to redress the unfair business
`practices employed by Defendant in connection with its sale of the glyphosate-based
`herbicide Roundup®.
`2. At all relevant times, Defendant’s retail stores and website have sold and
`continue to sell various Roundup® herbicide products directly to consumers despite
`Defendant’s knowledge Roundup® has the potential to cause cancer in humans, and
`that there is an ongoing scientific debate as to whether Roundup® can cause Non-
`Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”).
`3. Defendant has been aware glyphosate—the active ingredient in
`Roundup®—is a Class 2A herbicide, meaning the World Health Organization’s
`International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) has determined it is probably
`carcinogenic to humans.
`4. Defendant has also been aware that California has classified glyphosate
`as a chemical known to cause cancer.
`5. Defendant has also known Roundup® and other glyphosate-based
`herbicides have been banned by many countries, regions, and municipalities
`throughout the California and the world because it may be dangerous to human health.
`6. Additionally, Defendant is aware of the tens of thousands personal injury
`cases brought by individuals who have alleged Roundup® exposure caused their
`cancer.1
`
`
`1 Most of these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) before
`Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. As alleged herein (the
`1
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`1
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:1367
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`7. Defendant has also been further aware that, within the past two years,
`three California juries found that Roundup® likely caused certain plaintiffs in these
`personal injury cases to develop NHL, and have awarded nearly $100 million in
`compensatory damages and over $2 billion in punitive damages collectively.2
`8. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of Roundup®’s potential carcinogenicity
`throughout the class period, Defendant has sold and continues to sell Roundup® at its
`retail locations and on its website without providing consumers with any additional
`information on its website, store shelves or at the point of sale about the products’
`potential health risks. Defendant, at the very least, should inform consumers there is
`an ongoing scientific dispute over its potential carcinogenicity.
`9. Defendants’ conduct—continuing to sell a line of weed killer products
`despite knowing there has been a credible, ongoing scientific debate about the
`products’ potential carcinogenicity and without informing consumers about the
`potential health risks—constitutes an unfair business practice under the Unfair
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”).
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`10. 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. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in California and has sufficient
`
`
`makers of Roundup® Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) and Bayer Corporation
`(“Bayer”)) recently announced (a) a $10.1 billion settlement of the majority of these
`cases, and (b) a now-withdrawn separate $1.1 billion MDL class settlement to resolve
`future cases.
`2 As discussed below, these awards were later reduced by the trial courts. Two of the
`cases are on appeal, and one was recently affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.
`2
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`2
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:1368
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`12. 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
`13. Plaintiff JAMES WEEKS is an individual, a resident of Oxnard,
`California, and a member of the Class alleged herein.
`14. Defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. is a publicly traded 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 a product line of herbicide Roundup®, which
`contains the active ingredient glyphosate. All formulations of Roundup® are
`manufactured by non-parties Monsanto Company, Bayer Corporation, and/or Bayer
`AG.
`
`15. “Roundup” refers to any and all Roundup®-brand products and other
`herbicide products containing glyphosate that have been sold by Home Depot at any
`time during the class period. Roundup includes but is not limited to the following
`products: Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III; Roundup Ready-To-Use
`Weed & Grass Killer III with Comfort Wand; Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass
`Killer III Sure Shot Wand; Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III Trigger
`Sprayer; Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III with Pump 'N Go 2
`Sprayer; Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer III Pull N Spray Applicator;
`3
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`3
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:1369
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III Refill; Roundup Weed & Grass
`Killer Super Concentrate; Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus; Roundup
`Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus Value Size; Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended
`Control Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer II; Roundup Concentrate
`Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer II; Roundup Ready-to-
`Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer Pump N Go II; 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 Trigger; Sprayer Roundup Ready-To-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer
`Plus Weed Preventer II Refill; Roundup Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush
`Killer; Roundup Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer with Comfort
`Wand; Roundup Ready-To-Use Poison Ivy Plus Tough Brush Killer Trigger (with
`Trigger Sprayer); Roundup Concentrate Max Control 365; Roundup Ready-To-Use
`Max Control 365 Refill; and Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Precision Gel.
`16. Defendant transacted and conducted business within the State of
`California that relates to the allegations in this Complaint.
`17. Defendant derived substantial revenue from goods and products
`purchased and used in the State of California.
`18. Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
`activities within the State of California, thus invoking the benefits and protections of
`its laws.
`19. Defendant advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, throughout
`California and the United States, including in Ventura County, California.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A. Background on Roundup’s Ingredients and Packaging.
`20. Roundup is sold at Home Depot retail locations throughout the United
`States, including those in California, and on Home Depot’s website.
`
`4
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`4
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:1370
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`21. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. 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
`(“Monsanto”) in 1974.
`22. In addition to the active ingredient glyphosate, Roundup formulations
`also contain adjuvants and other chemicals, such as the surfactant polyethoxylated
`tallow amine (“POEA”), which are considered “inert” and therefore protected as
`“trade secrets” in manufacturing. Growing evidence suggests that these adjuvants and
`additional components of Roundup formulations are not, in fact, inert and are toxic in
`their own right.
`23. Exemplar photographs of Roundup’s packaging are attached hereto as
`“Exhibit A.” The front panel of Roundup’s packaging states: “Keep Out of Reach of
`Children” and “Caution.” The back panel booklet provides Roundup may cause
`“moderate eye irritation.”
`24. Roundup’s Safety Data Sheet (“SDS”),3 issued by Monsanto, similarly
`warns it may cause “serious eye irritation.”
`25. These statements about potential eye irritation on the packaging and SDS
`sheet give the false impression that eye irritation is the only potential health risk posed
`by Roundup.
`B. The IARC Classification of Glyphosate.
`26. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an
`intergovernmental cancer agency within the World Health Organization (“WHO”) of
`
`
`3 The Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR § 1910.1200(g)) requires any
`chemical manufacturer, distributor, or importer to provide SDSs for each hazardous
`chemical to downstream users to communicate information on these hazards. The
`SDS includes information such as the properties of each chemical; the physical,
`health, and environmental health hazards; protective measures; and safety precautions
`for handling, storing, and transporting the chemical.
`5
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`5
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:1371
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`the United Nations, was tasked in 2015 with conducting and coordinating research
`into the causes of cancer it pertained to glyphosate.
`27. 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 glyphosate 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.
`28. 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.
`29. The IARC also found that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal
`damage in human cells.
`30. The IARC’s conclusions were consistent with scientific developments
`that had occurred in prior decades.
`C. Early Studies on Roundup’s Carcinogenic Properties.
`31. As early as the 1980’s, glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties began to
`come to light.
`32. On March 4, 1985, a group of within EPA’s Toxicology Branch published
`a “consensus review” based on a mouse study conducted by Monsanto in 1983. The
`review “classified Glyphosate as a Category C oncogen,” meaning it is a possible
`human carcinogen.
`33. However in June 1991, EPA published a memorandum entitled, “Second
`Peer Review of Glyphosate,” which changed glyphosate’s classification to Group E
`(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). Two peer review committee members
`did not concur with the conclusions, and the Memorandum itself “emphasized
`6
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`6
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:1372
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”
`34. Further studies and developments indicated glysophate indeed posed (and
`still poses) a definite carcinogenic effect on humans.
`35. In 1996, the New York Attorney General sued Monsanto 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.
`36. 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.
`37. 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
`exposed to various herbicides, including Roundup, for a 24-hour period. Roundup-
`treated tadpoles showed “significant DNA damage when compared with unexposed
`control animals.”
`38. 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
`
`7
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`7
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:1373
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`questionnaires were supplemented by telephone interviews. The results indicated
`exposure to glyphosate and other herbicides yielded increased risks for NHL.
`39. 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.”
`40. 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.”
`41. 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
`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.
`42. In 2005, Francisco Peixo published a study entitled, “Comparative effects
`of the Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation,” which
`suggested the harmful effects of Roundup could be the result of Roundup’s specific
`combination of chemicals, and the interaction of glyphosate and the surfactant POEA.
`43. In 2008, Mikael Eriksson, et al. published a study entitled, “Pesticide
`exposure as risk factor for NHL including histopathological subgroup analysis,”
`8
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`8
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:1374
`
`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
`
`
`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 in Roundup alone. This study suggests Roundup poses even greater risks
`than glyphosate alone, as a result of Roundup’s specific combination of chemicals,
`and the interaction of glyphosate and POEA.
`D. Glyphosate-Based Herbicides,
`Including Roundup, are Banned
`Throughout California and the World.
`46. Following the IARC’s report on glyphosate, several countries have issued
`outright bans or restrictions on glyphosate herbicides, including Roundup.
`47. In May 2015, the Netherlands banned all non-commercial use of
`glyphosate.
`See
`https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/30/why-the-
`netherlands-just-banned-monsantos-glyphosate-based-herbicides/.
`
`9
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`9
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:1375
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`and in
`the
`pre-harvest
`phase
`in
`agriculture.
`See
`https://www.soilassociation.org/news/2016/august/italy-bans-toxic-glyphosate/.
`49. In June 2017, the Flemish government approved a ban on glyphosate for
`individual-use.
`See
`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
`agent.
`See
`https://phys.org/news/2018-09-czech-republic-restrict-glyphosate-
`weedkiller.html. The ban came
`into effect on January 1, 2019. See
`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 glyphosate.
`See 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 when clearing
`the widely used herbicide. See 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
`https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/04/11/523456.htm.
`53. In March 2019, Vietnam announced it has banned the import of all
`glyphosate-based herbicides. See https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/03/25/vietnam-
`
`10
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`10
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:1376
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`bans-import-of-glyphosate-herbicides-after-us-cancer-trial-verdict/#.XS-
`xCT9Kh9O.
`54. In July 2019, Austria’s Parliament passed a bill banning all uses of
`glyphosate.
`https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-glyphosate/austrian-
`See
`parliament-backs-eus-first-total-ban-of-weedkiller-glyphosate-idUSKCN1TX1JR.
`Although the ban was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2020, Austria’s
`Chancellor refused to sign it into law due to a legal technicality. See
`https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-glyphosate/austrian-leader-blocks-ban-
`on-weedkiller-glyphosate-citing-technicality-idUSKBN1YD11Z.
`55. In January 2020, Luxembourg issued a total ban on glyphosate. See
`https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/eu-affairs/92006/luxembourg-will-be-first-
`eu-country-to-totally-ban-glyphosate/.
`56. Several municipalities and regions in Spain, the United Kingdom, and the
`United States, have also banned glyphosate-based herbicides.
`57. Furthermore, the following local governments and municipalities in
`California have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate-based herbicides:
`a. The East Bay Regional Park District, a special district operating regional
`parks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, banned glyphosate around
`picnic and play areas effective July 2019.
`b. The City of Benicia discontinued its use of glyphosate products in 2018.
`c. The City of Burbank discontinued its use of Roundup in 2017.
`d. The City of Clayton discontinued its use of glyphosate products on city
`property in 2019.
`e. The Mount Diablo Unified School District in the City of Concord
`unanimously voted to ban glyphosate use on school property in 2019.
`f. The City of Davis voted to officially end the use of glyphosate-based
`herbicides in February 2020.
`
`11
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`11
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:1377
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`g. The City of Encinitas banned the use of Roundup and other glyphosate-
`based weed killers in city parks in 2015.
`h. The City of Greenfield adopted a resolution to halt the use of Roundup
`and replace it with “greener” alternatives in 2019.
`i. The City of Irvine passed resolution to cease spraying Roundup and other
`chemicals on public parks, streets and playgrounds in 2016.
`j. The City of Lodi decided to ban the use of Roundup within 25 feet of
`playgrounds in 2019.
`k. The Long Beach Parks & Recreation Director announced an immediate
`halt on the spraying of Roundup in Long Beach Parks in 2018.
`l. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors issued a moratorium on
`glyphosate-based herbicides in 2019.
`m. Marin County stopped using glyphosate on all county-maintained parks,
`landscaping, playgrounds, walkways and parking areas in 2015.
`n. The City of Napa in March 2019 announced a policy banning glyphosate
`use on city property.
`o. The City of Novato announced it would stop using glyphosate-based
`herbicides in 2018.
`p. The City of Oakland formally halted the use of Roundup in September
`2018.
`q. Orange County Parks banned the use of glyphosate on and around
`playgrounds, picnic shelters, trails and campgrounds in 2019.
`r. The Oxnard School District board voted to ban Roundup use on campuses
`in 2019.
`s. The City of Richmond issued an ordinance to ban the use of glyphosate
`for all weed abatement activities conducted by the city in 2015.
`t. The San Lorenzo Valley Water District voted 4-1 for a permanent ban of
`glyphosate pesticide use by the district in 2019.
`12
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`12
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:1378
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`u. The San Luis Coastal Unified School District banned all pesticides,
`including Roundup, on school properties in 2018.
`v. The Santa Barbara Unified School District Board of Education voted to
`ban glyphosate spraying at all district schools in 2019.
`w. The City of Santa Rosa banned the use of Roundup at city parks in 2018.
`x. The City of Sonoma banned glyphosate use on all city-owned property in
`2019.
`y. The City of Thousand Oaks instituted a ban on glyphosate use on public
`golf courses in 2015.
`z. The City of Watsonville voted unanimously to ban Roundup use on city
`property in 2019.
`aa. Woodland Joint Unified School District suspended the use of Roundup
`on school campuses in 2018.
`Given Defendant has retail locations in many of the areas listed above, it was likely
`aware of these bans and the concerns around glyphosate-based herbicides.
`
`E. Monsanto Loses Three Jury Trials after Roundup is Found to Cause
`Cancer in Humans.
`58. Tens of thousands of individuals have filed personal injury lawsuits
`against Monsanto and Bayer on grounds Roundup exposure caused their NHL.
`59. Many of these lawsuits, filed in federal courts throughout the United
`States, were consolidated before Judge Vince Chhabria in an multi-district litigation
`(“MDL”), entitled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741 (N.D.
`Cal.).
`
`60. On August 10, 2018, a unanimous California jury in Johnson v. Monsanto
`Co., No. CGC16550128 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of S.F.) held Monsanto’s Roundup
`and Ranger Pro herbicides were unsafe and were a substantial factor in causing harm
`to the plaintiff. The jury also found Monsanto failed to adequately warn customers
`of the risks associated with its Roundup and Ranger Pro products, and that the
`13
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`13
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:1379
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`company acted with malice or oppression. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of
`$289 million, with $250 million in punitive damages and $39.25 million in
`compensatory damages. The court later reduced the punitive damages award, bringing
`the total award to $78.5 million. On or about July 21, 2020, the California Court of
`Appeal affirmed the judgment, found the plaintiff’s claims were not preempted, and
`reduced the total award.
`61. On March 27, 2019, a unanimous California jury in Hardeman v.
`Monsanto Co., No. 3:16-cv-00525-VC (N.D. Cal.) found Monsanto liable for failing
`to warn Roundup could cause cancer, liable for negligence, and liable in a design
`defect claim. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $80.27 million, with $75 million
`in punitive damages and $5.27 million in compensatory damages. The court later
`reduced the punitive damages award, bringing the total award to $25.27 million.
`Monsanto has appealed the judgment and the matter is currently before the Ninth
`Circuit Court of Appeals.
`62. On May 13, 2019, a California jury found Monsanto likely caused a
`couple’s cancer in Pilliod v. Monsanto Co., No. RG17862702 (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. The jury awarded the
`plaintiffs a total of $2.055 billion, with $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million
`in compensatory damages. The court later reduced the punitive and compensatory
`damages awards, bringing the total award to $87 million. Monsanto has appealed the
`judgment and the matter is currently before the California Court of Appeal.
`63. On information and belief, throughout the class period, Home Depot was
`aware of the existence of the aforementioned personal injury litigation involving
`Roundup, and has been aware of as well as the ultimate jury verdicts.
`F. The Makers of Roundup Agreed to Pay Over $10 Billion to Settle Personal
`
`Injury Suits.
`
`14
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`14
`Error! Unknown document property name.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06780-JWH-AS Document 67 Filed 10/02/20 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:1380
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`64. On June 24, 2020, the makers of Roundup announced they reached a
`$10.1 billion settlement with thousands of plaintiffs in the MDL. When finalized, the
`settlements will bring closure to approximately 75% of the current Roundup personal
`injury litigation, invo

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