Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 69 Page ID #1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`JAMES HEMKER and JUDITH HEMKER,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC,
`SYNGENTA AG, and
`CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:21‐cv‐00211
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, JAMES HEMKER and JUDITH HEMKER, complaining of Defendants,
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, SYNGENTA AG, and CHEVRON U.S.A.,
`
`INC., state:
`
`I.
`
`Summary of the case
`
`1.
`
`Paraquat is a synthetic chemical compound1 that since the mid‐1960s has
`
`been developed, registered, manufactured, distributed, sold for use, and used as an
`
`active ingredient in herbicide products (“paraquat products”) developed, registered,
`
`formulated, distributed, and sold for use in the United States (“U.S.”), including the
`
`State of Illinois (“Illinois”).
`
`
`1 Paraquat dichloride (EPA Pesticide Chemical Code 061601) or paraquat methosulfate (EPA Pesticide
`Chemical Code 061602).
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`JAMES HEMKER and JUDITH HEMKER,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC,
`SYNGENTA AG, and
`CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:21‐cv‐00211
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, JAMES HEMKER and JUDITH HEMKER, complaining of Defendants,
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, SYNGENTA AG, and CHEVRON U.S.A.,
`
`INC., state:
`
`I.
`
`Summary of the case
`
`1.
`
`Paraquat is a synthetic chemical compound1 that since the mid‐1960s has
`
`been developed, registered, manufactured, distributed, sold for use, and used as an
`
`active ingredient in herbicide products (“paraquat products”) developed, registered,
`
`formulated, distributed, and sold for use in the United States (“U.S.”), including the
`
`State of Illinois (“Illinois”).
`
`
`1 Paraquat dichloride (EPA Pesticide Chemical Code 061601) or paraquat methosulfate (EPA Pesticide
`Chemical Code 061602).
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 69 Page ID #2
`
`2.
`
`From approximately May 1964 through approximately June 1981, Imperial
`
`Chemical Industries Limited (“ICI Limited”) and certain ICI Limited subsidiaries,2 and
`
`from approximately June 1981 through approximately September 1986, Imperial
`
`Chemical Industries PLC (“ICI PLC”) and certain ICI PLC subsidiaries, each of which
`
`was a predecessor3 of Defendant SYNGENTA AG (“SAG”) and/or Defendant
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC (“SCPLLC”), were engaged, directly, acting in
`
`concert with each other, and/or acting in concert with Chevron Chemical Company,
`
`previously known as California Chemical Company (“CHEVRON”), in the business of
`
`developing, registering, manufacturing, distributing, and selling paraquat for use as an
`
`active ingredient in paraquat products, and developing, registering, formulating, and
`
`distributing paraquat products, for sale and use in the U.S., including Illinois (“the U.S.
`
`paraquat business”).
`
`3.
`
`From approximately May 1964 through approximately September 1986,
`
`CHEVRON, a predecessor of Defendant CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. (“CUSA”), was
`
`
`2 As used in this Complaint, “subsidiary” means a corporation or other business entity’s wholly‐owned
`subsidiary that is or formerly was engaged in the U.S. paraquat business directly or acting in concert with
`others.
`3 As used in this Complaint, “predecessor” means a corporation or other business entity or subsidiary
`thereof, to which a Defendant is a successor by merger, continuation of business, or assumption of
`liabilities, that formerly was engaged in the U.S. paraquat business directly or acting in concert with
`others.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 69 Page ID #3
`
`engaged, directly and/or acting in concert with ICI,4 in all aspects of the U.S. paraquat
`
`business.
`
`4.
`
`Between approximately May 1964 and approximately September 1986, ICI
`
`manufactured and sold to CHEVRON paraquat (“ICI‐CHEVRON paraquat”) for use by
`
`CHEVRON, and others to which CHEVRON distributed it, as an active ingredient in
`
`paraquat products that CHEVRON and others formulated and distributed for sale and
`
`use in the U.S., including Illinois (“ICI‐CHEVRON paraquat products”).
`
`5.
`
`From approximately September 1986 through the present, ICI PLC and
`
`certain ICI PLC subsidiaries (including predecessors of SCPLLC) initially, then other
`
`SAG predecessors and certain subsidiaries of each (including predecessors of SCPLLC),
`
`and most recently SAG and certain SAG subsidiaries (including SCPLLC), have been
`
`engaged, directly and/or acting in concert with each other, in all aspects of the U.S.
`
`paraquat business.
`
`6.
`
`From approximately September 1986 through the present, ICI PLC and
`
`certain ICI PLC subsidiaries (including predecessors of SCPLLC) initially, then other
`
`SAG predecessors and certain subsidiaries of each (including predecessors of SCPLLC),
`
`and most recently SAG and certain SAG subsidiaries (including SCPLLC), have
`
`manufactured paraquat (“ICI‐SYNGENTA paraquat”) for their own use, and for use by
`
`
`4 As used in this Complaint, “ICI” means ICI Limited and various ICI Limited subsidiaries through
`approximately June 1981 and ICI PLC and various ICI PLC subsidiaries thereafter.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 4 of 69 Page ID #4
`
`others to which they distributed it, as an active ingredient in paraquat products that
`
`SCPLLC and its predecessors and others have distributed for sale and use in the U.S.,
`
`including Illinois (“ICI‐SYNGENTA paraquat products”).
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff JAMES HEMKER purchased and used in Illinois ICI‐CHEVRON
`
`paraquat products and/or ICI‐SYNGENTA paraquat products (collectively,
`
`“Defendants’ paraquat products”).
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff JAMES HEMKER used Defendants’ paraquat products regularly
`
`and frequently over a period of many years.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff JAMES HEMKER suffers from Parkinson’s disease caused by
`
`many years of regular, frequent, prolonged exposure to paraquat from Defendants’
`
`paraquat products, and Plaintiff JUDITH HEMKER has suffered losses of the services
`
`and consortium of Plaintiff JAMES HEMKER as a result of his illness.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this case to recover from Defendants, under the following
`
`alternative theories of liability, compensation for injuries and damages caused by the
`
`exposure of Plaintiff JAMES HEMKER to paraquat from Defendants’ paraquat
`
`products, plus costs of suit: strict product liability—design defect; strict product
`
`liability—failure to warn; negligence and willful and wanton conduct; public nuisance;
`
`violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; and
`
`breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 5 of 69 Page ID #5
`
`under Illinois common law and punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees under
`
`the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
`
`II.
`
`Parties
`
`A.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiffs JAMES HEMKER and JUDITH HEMKER are husband and wife
`
`and citizens of the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs reside in the Village of Bartelso in Clinton
`
`County, Illinois.
`
`B.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants
`
`SCPLLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business in Greensboro, North Carolina. SCPLLC is a wholly‐owned subsidiary of
`
`Defendant SAG.
`
`13.
`
`SAG is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Basel,
`
`Switzerland.
`
`14.
`
`CUSA is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`San Ramon, California.
`
`III.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because
`
`diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 6 of 69 Page ID #6
`
`16.
`
`The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
`
`of interest and costs, because each Plaintiff seeks an amount that exceeds this sum or
`
`value on each of his or her claims against each Defendant.
`
`17.
`
`Complete diversity exists because this is an action between citizens of
`
`different states in which a citizen or subject of a foreign state is an additional party, in
`
`that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Illinois;
`
`SCPLLC is a citizen of the States of Delaware and North Carolina;
`
`CUSA is a citizen of the States of Pennsylvania and California; and
`
`SAG is a citizen or subject of the nation of Switzerland.
`
`IV.
`
`Personal jurisdiction
`
`18.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants in this
`
`diversity case because a state court in the State of Illinois would have such jurisdiction
`
`under 735 ILCS 5/2‐209, in that:
`
`a.
`Over a period of two (Chevron) to six (Syngenta) decades, each
`Defendant and/or its predecessor(s), together with those with whom they were
`acting in concert, manufactured paraquat for use as an active ingredient in
`paraquat products, distributed paraquat to formulators of paraquat products,
`formulated paraquat products, marketed paraquat products to the Illinois
`agricultural community, and/or distributed paraquat products, intending that
`such products regularly would be, and knowing they regularly were, sold and
`used in the State of Illinois;
`
`b.
`Plaintiffs’ claims against each Defendant arise out of these contacts
`between the Defendant and/or its predecessor(s), together with those with whom
`they were acting in concert, with the State of Illinois; and
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 7 of 69 Page ID #7
`
`c.
`These contacts between each Defendant and/or its predecessors,
`together with those with whom they were acting in concert, and the State of
`Illinois, were so regular, frequent, and sustained as to provide fair warning that
`it might be hauled into court there, such that requiring it to defend this action in
`the State of Illinois does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`justice.
`
`V.
`
`Venue
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this
`
`district, in that Plaintiffs’ claims arise from injuries caused by the exposure of Plaintiff
`
`JAMES HEMKER to paraquat from paraquat products that were distributed and sold
`
`for use in this district, were purchased or purchased for use in this district, and were
`
`being used in this district when the exposures that caused the injuries occurred.
`
`VI. Allegations common to all causes of action
`
`A.
`
`Defendants and their predecessors
`
`1.
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Syngenta AG
`
`20.
`
`SAG is the successor in interest to the crop‐protection business of each of
`
`its predecessors, AstraZeneca PLC (“AstraZeneca”), Zeneca Group PLC (“Zeneca
`
`Group”), ICI PLC, ICI Limited, and Plant Protection Limited (“PP Limited”) and their
`
`respective crop‐protection subsidiaries (collectively, “SAG’s predecessors”), in that:
`
`a.
`SAG, and each of SAG’s predecessors, was the result of a corporate
`name change by, de facto consolidation or merger of, or mere continuation of, its
`immediate predecessor(s); and/or
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 8 of 69 Page ID #8
`
`b.
`SAG has expressly or impliedly agreed to assume any liability on
`claims arising from the historical operation of the crop‐protection business of
`each of SAG’s predecessors.
`
`21.
`
`SCPLLC is the successor in interest to the crop‐protection business of each
`
`of its predecessors, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. (“SCPI”), Zeneca Ag Products, Inc.
`
`(“Zeneca Ag”), Zeneca, Inc. (“Zeneca”), ICI Americas, Inc. (“ICIA”), ICI United States,
`
`Inc. (“ICI US”), and ICI America Inc. (“ICI America”) (collectively, “SCPLLC’s
`
`predecessors”), in that:
`
`a.
`SCPLLC, and each of SCPLLC’s predecessors, was the result of a
`corporate name change by, de facto consolidation or merger of, or mere
`continuation of, its immediate predecessor(s); and/or
`
`b.
`SCPLLC has expressly or impliedly agreed to assume any liability
`on claims arising from the historical operation of the crop‐protection business of
`each of SCPLLC’s predecessors.
`
`22. At all relevant times, SCPLLC, SCPI, Zeneca Ag, Zeneca, ICIA, ICI US,
`
`and/or ICI America was a wholly‐owned U.S. crop‐protection subsidiary of SAG or a
`
`predecessor of SAG.
`
`23. At all relevant times, PP Limited was a wholly‐owned U.K. crop‐
`
`protection subsidiary of ICI Limited, an unincorporated division of ICI Limited, or an
`
`unincorporated division of ICI PLC.
`
`24. At all relevant times, SAG and its predecessors exercised a degree of
`
`control over their crop‐protection subsidiaries so unusually high that these subsidiaries
`
`were their agents or alter egos.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 9 of 69 Page ID #9
`
`2.
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
`
`25.
`
`CUSA is the successor in interest to CHEVRON’s crop‐protection
`
`business, in that it has expressly assumed any liability on claims arising from the
`
`historical operation of that business.
`
`B.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants’ and their predecessors’ involvement in the U.S. paraquat
`business
`
`ICI Limited discovered the herbicidal properties of paraquat in the mid‐
`
`1950s; developed herbicide formulations containing paraquat as an active ingredient in
`
`the early 1960s; and produced the first commercial paraquat formulation, which it
`
`registered it in England and introduced in certain markets under the brand name
`
`GRAMOXONE®, in 1962.
`
`27.
`
`ICI Limited was awarded a U.S. patent on herbicide formulations
`
`containing paraquat as an active ingredient in 1962.
`
`28.
`
`In May 1964, ICI Limited, PP Limited, and CHEVRON entered into an
`
`agreement for the distribution of paraquat in the U.S. and the licensing of certain
`
`paraquat‐related patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property (“paraquat
`
`licensing and distribution agreement”).
`
`29. As a result of the May 1964 paraquat licensing and distribution
`
`agreement, paraquat became commercially available for use in the U.S. in or about 1965.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 10 of 69 Page ID #10
`
`30.
`
`In April 1975, ICI Limited, ICI US, and CHEVRON entered into a new
`
`paraquat licensing and distribution agreement that superseded the May 1964
`
`agreement.
`
`31.
`
`In November 1981, ICIA, CHEVRON, and ICI PLC entered into a new
`
`paraquat licensing and distribution agreement, effective January 1982, which
`
`superseded in part and amended in part the April 1975 agreement.
`
`32.
`
`From approximately May 1964 through approximately September 1986,
`
`pursuant to these paraquat licensing and distribution agreements, ICI and CHEVRON
`
`acted in concert in all aspects of the U.S. paraquat business.
`
`33.
`
`In September 1986, ICI and CHEVRON entered into an agreement
`
`terminating their paraquat licensing and distribution agreement.
`
`34. Under the September 1986 termination agreement, ICI paid CHEVRON
`
`for the early termination of CHEVRON’s rights under their paraquat licensing and
`
`distribution agreement.
`
`35. Although the September 1986 termination agreement gave ICI the right to
`
`buy, or exchange for ICI‐labeled paraquat products, CHEVRON‐labeled paraquat
`
`products that CHEVRON had already sold to its distributors, CHEVRON‐labeled
`
`paraquat products continued to be sold for use in the U.S. after this agreement for some
`
`period of time unknown to Plaintiffs.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 11 of 69 Page ID #11
`
`36.
`
`SAG, SAG’s predecessors, and subsidiaries of SAG and its predecessors
`
`(collectively, “SYNGENTA”), have at all relevant times manufactured more paraquat
`
`used as an active ingredient in paraquat products formulated and distributed for sale
`
`and use in the U.S., including Illinois, than all other paraquat manufacturers combined.
`
`37.
`
`From the mid‐1960s through at least 1986, SYNGENTA (as ICI) was the
`
`only manufacturer of paraquat used as an active ingredient in paraquat products
`
`formulated and distributed for sale and use in the U.S., including Illinois.
`
`38.
`
`From approximately September 1986 through the present, SYNGENTA
`
`has:
`
`a.
`manufactured paraquat for use as an active ingredient in paraquat
`products formulated and distributed for sale and use in the U.S., including
`Illinois;
`
`b.
`distributed paraquat for use as an active ingredient in paraquat
`products formulated and distributed for sale and use in the U.S., including
`Illinois;
`
`c.
`formulated paraquat products distributed for sale and use in the
`U.S., including Illinois; and
`
`d.
`distributed paraquat products for sale and use in the U.S.,
`including Illinois.
`
`C.
`
`The use of paraquat products and Defendants’ knowledge thereof
`
`39. Defendants’ paraquat products have been used in the U.S. to kill broadleaf
`
`weeds and grasses before the planting or emergence of more than 100 field, fruit,
`
`vegetable, and plantation crops, to control weeds in orchards, and to desiccate (dry)
`
`plants before harvest. At all relevant times, the use of Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 12 of 69 Page ID #12
`
`for these purposes was intended or directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was
`
`known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON.
`
`40. Defendants’ paraquat products were commonly used multiple times per
`
`year on the same ground, particularly when used to control weeds in orchards and in
`
`farm fields where multiple crops are planted in the same growing season or year. At all
`
`relevant times, the use of Defendants’ paraquat products in this manner was intended
`
`or directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen by,
`
`SYNGENTA and CHEVRON.
`
`41. Defendants’ paraquat products were typically sold to end users in the
`
`form of liquid concentrates that were then diluted with water in the tank of a sprayer
`
`and applied by spraying the diluted product onto target weeds. At all relevant times,
`
`the use of Defendants’ paraquat products in this manner was intended or directed by or
`
`reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and
`
`CHEVRON.
`
`42. Defendants’ paraquat products were typically formulated with a
`
`surfactant or surfactants, and/or a surfactant, surfactant product, or “crop oil,” which
`
`typically contains one or more surfactants, was commonly added by users of
`
`Defendants’ products, to increase the ability of paraquat to stay in contact with and
`
`penetrate the leaves of target plants and enter plant cells. At all relevant times, the
`
`use of Defendants’ paraquat products as so formulated and/or with such substances
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 13 of 69 Page ID #13
`
`added was intended or directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or
`
`foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON.
`
`43.
`
`Knapsack sprayers, hand‐held sprayers, aircraft (i.e., crop dusters), trucks
`
`with attached pressurized tanks, and tractor‐drawn pressurized tanks, were commonly
`
`used to apply Defendants’ paraquat products. At all relevant times, the use of such
`
`equipment for that purpose was intended or directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON.
`
`D.
`
`Exposure to paraquat and Defendants’ knowledge thereof
`
`44. When Defendants’ paraquat products were used in a manner that was
`
`intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen
`
`by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, persons who used them and others nearby were
`
`commonly exposed to paraquat while it was being mixed and loaded into the tanks of
`
`sprayers, including as a result of spills, splashes, and leaks. At all relevant times, it was
`
`reasonably foreseeable to, and known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON
`
`that such exposure commonly would and did occur and would and did create a
`
`substantial risk of harm to the persons exposed.
`
`45. When Defendants’ paraquat products were used in a manner that was
`
`intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen
`
`by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, persons who sprayed them, and others nearby while
`
`they were being sprayed or when they recently had been sprayed, commonly were
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 14 of 69 Page ID #14
`
`exposed to paraquat, including as a result of spray drift (the movement of herbicide
`
`spray droplets from the target area to an area where herbicide application was not
`
`intended, typically by wind) and contact with sprayed plants. At all relevant times, it
`
`was reasonably foreseeable to, and known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and
`
`CHEVRON, that such exposure commonly would and did occur and would and did
`
`create a substantial risk of harm to the persons exposed.
`
`46. When Defendants’ paraquat products were used in a manner that was
`
`intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen
`
`by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, persons who used them and other persons nearby
`
`commonly were exposed to paraquat, including as a result of spills, splashes, and leaks,
`
`while equipment used to spray it was being emptied or cleaned or clogged spray
`
`nozzles, lines, or valves were being cleared. At all relevant times, it was reasonably
`
`foreseeable to, and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that
`
`such exposure commonly would and did occur and would and did create a substantial
`
`risk of harm to the persons exposed.
`
`47. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat could and did enter the human body via
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 15 of 69 Page ID #15
`
`absorption through or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes, and other epithelial
`
`tissues, including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages, trachea, and
`
`conducting airways, particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other tissue
`
`damage was present, and that paraquat that entered the human body in one or more of
`
`these ways would and did create a substantial risk of harm to people so exposed.
`
`48. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat could and did enter the human body via
`
`respiration into the lungs, including the deep parts of the lungs where respiration (gas
`
`exchange) occurs, and that paraquat that entered the human body in this way would
`
`and did create a substantial risk of harm to people so exposed.
`
`49. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat could and did enter the human body via
`
`ingestion into the digestive tract of small droplets swallowed after entering the mouth,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 16 of 69 Page ID #16
`
`nose, or conducting airways, and that paraquat that entered the human body in this
`
`way would and did create a substantial risk of harm to people so exposed.
`
`50. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat that entered the human body via ingestion
`
`into the digestive tract could and did enter the enteric nervous system (the part of the
`
`nervous system that governs the function of the gastrointestinal tract), and that
`
`paraquat that entered the enteric nervous system would and did create a substantial
`
`risk of harm to people so exposed.
`
`51. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat that entered the human body, whether via
`
`absorption, respiration, or ingestion, could and did enter the bloodstream, and that
`
`paraquat that entered the bloodstream would and did create a substantial risk of harm
`
`to people so exposed.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 17 of 69 Page ID #17
`
`52. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat that entered the bloodstream could and did
`
`enter the brain, whether through the blood‐brain barrier or parts of the brain not
`
`protected by the blood‐brain barrier, and that paraquat that entered the brain would
`
`and did create a substantial risk of harm to people so exposed.
`
`53. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat as a result, paraquat that entered the nose and nasal passages
`
`could and did enter the brain through the olfactory bulb (a part of the brain involved in
`
`the sense of smell), which is not protected by the blood‐brain barrier, and that paraquat
`
`that entered the olfactory bulb would and did create a substantial risk of harm to people
`
`so exposed.
`
`54. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to, and was known to
`
`or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON that when Defendants’ paraquat products
`
`were used in a manner that was intended and directed by or reasonably foreseeable to,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 18 of 69 Page ID #18
`
`and was known to or foreseen by, SYNGENTA and CHEVRON, and people were
`
`exposed to paraquat products that contained surfactants or had surfactants added to
`
`them, the surfactants would and did increase the toxicity of paraquat toxicity to humans
`
`by increasing its ability to stay in contact with or penetrate cells and cellular structures,
`
`including but not limited to the skin, mucous membranes, and other epithelial and
`
`endothelial tissues, including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages, trachea,
`
`conducting airways, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, blood‐brain barrier, and neurons, and
`
`that this would and did increase the already substantial risk of harm to people so
`
`exposed.
`
`E.
`
`55.
`
`Parkinson’s disease
`
`Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the
`
`brain that affects primarily the motor system, the part of the central nervous system that
`
`controls movement.
`
`56.
`
`The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary”
`
`motor symptoms: resting tremor (shaking movement when the muscles are relaxed),
`
`bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes), rigidity (stiffness and
`
`resistance to passive movement), and postural instability (impaired balance).
`
`57.
`
`Parkinson’s disease’s primary motor symptoms often result in
`
`“secondary” motor symptoms such as freezing of gait; shrinking handwriting; mask‐
`
`like expression; slurred, monotonous, quiet voice; stooped posture; muscle spasms;
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 19 of 69 Page ID #19
`
`impaired coordination; difficulty swallowing; and excess saliva and drooling caused by
`
`reduced swallowing movements.
`
`58. Non‐motor symptoms—such as loss of or altered sense of smell;
`
`constipation; low blood pressure on rising to stand; sleep disturbances; and
`
`depression—are present in most cases of Parkinson’s disease, often for years before any
`
`of the primary motor symptoms appear.
`
`59.
`
`There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease; no treatment will stop
`
`or reverse its progression, and the treatments most commonly prescribed for its motor
`
`symptoms tend to become progressively less effective, and to cause unwelcome side
`
`effects, the longer they are used.
`
`60.
`
`The selective degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons
`
`(dopamine‐producing nerve cells) in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra pars
`
`compacta (“SNpc”) is one of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s
`
`disease.
`
`61. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (a chemical messenger that transmits
`
`signals from one neuron to another neuron, muscle cell, or gland cell) that is critical to
`
`the brain’s control of motor function (among other things).
`
`62.
`
`The death of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc decreases the production
`
`of dopamine.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 20 of 69 Page ID #20
`
`63. Once dopaminergic neurons die, they are not replaced; when enough
`
`dopaminergic neurons have died, dopamine production falls below the level the brain
`
`requires for proper control of motor function, resulting in the motor symptoms of
`
`Parkinson’s disease.
`
`64.
`
`The presence of Lewy bodies (insoluble aggregates of a protein called
`
`alpha‐synuclein) in many of the remaining dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc is
`
`another of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`65. Dopaminergic neurons are particularly susceptible to oxidative stress, a
`
`disturbance in the normal balance between oxidants present in cells and cells’
`
`antioxidant defenses.
`
`66.
`
`Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease generally agree that oxidative
`
`stress is a major factor in—if not the precipitating cause of—the degeneration and death
`
`of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc and the accumulation of Lewy bodies in the
`
`remaining dopaminergic neurons that are the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of
`
`Parkinson’s disease.
`
`F.
`
`67.
`
`Paraquat’s toxicity
`
`Paraquat is highly toxic to both plants and animals because it causes and
`
`contributes to cause the degeneration and death of living cells in both plants and
`
`animals.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 21 of 69 Page ID #21
`
`68.
`
`Paraquat causes and contributes to cause the degeneration and death of
`
`plant and animal cells both directly, through oxidation, and indirectly, through
`
`oxidative stress created or aggravated by the “redox cycling” of paraquat; these
`
`processes damage lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids, molecules that are essential
`
`components of the structures and functions of living cells, and interfere with cellular
`
`functions—in plant cells, with photosynthesis, and in animal cells, with cellular
`
`respiration—that are essential to cellular health.
`
`69.
`
`In both plant and animal cells, paraquat undergoes redox cycling that
`
`creates or aggravates oxidative stress because of the “redox properties” inherent in
`
`paraquat’s chemical composition and structure: paraquat is both a strong oxidant and
`
`has a high propensity to undergo redox cycling, and to do so repeatedly, in the presence
`
`of a suitable reductant and molecular oxygen, both of which are present in all living
`
`cells.
`
`70.
`
`The redox cycling of paraquat in living cells creates a “reactive oxygen
`
`species” known as superoxide radical, an extremely reactive molecule that can and
`
`often does initiate a cascading series of chemical reactions that can and often do create
`
`other reactive oxygen species that damage lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids, molecules
`
`that are essential components of the structures and functions of living cells.
`
`71.
`
`Because the redox cycling of paraquat can repeat indefinitely in the
`
`conditions typically present in living cells, a single molecule of paraquat can trigger the
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00211-MAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 22 of 69 Page ID #22
`
`production of countless molecules of destructive superoxide radical. After even a tiny
`
`amount of paraquat enters the human brain, paraquat molecules continue to undergo
`
`redox cycling and continue to cause damage to human brain cells. This repeated cycling
`
`continues in the presence of oxygen and c
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
