317 F. Supp. 3d 1042
W.D. Wis.2018Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Blitz (Wisconsin resident) bought Roundup and alleges the label statement "Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets" is false, induced his purchase, and caused pecuniary loss.
- Glyphosate inhibits EPSP synthase in the shikimate pathway; EPSP is not present in human or animal cells but alleged to be present in bacteria in the human gut.
- Monsanto's Roundup labels containing the statement were EPA-approved and the product has federal registration under FIFRA.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), raising FIFRA preemption, literal falsity and misleadingness, failure to give UCC notice for an express-warranty claim, failure to state unjust enrichment, and personal-jurisdiction concerns for a nationwide class.
- The court (Conley, D. Wis.): exercised personal jurisdiction over Blitz, reserved ruling on nationwide class jurisdiction, held FIFRA did not preempt Blitz’s state-law damage claims, allowed the WDTPA deceptive-label claim to proceed, but dismissed express-warranty (for lack of buyer notice) and unjust-enrichment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over named plaintiff | Blitz bought in Wisconsin; forum has specific jurisdiction | Nationwide class claims exceed forum jurisdiction under Bristol-Myers | Court has personal jurisdiction over Blitz; reserved decision on nationwide class jurisdiction |
| FIFRA preemption of state-law claims | State-law damage claims enforcing labeling truthfulness are not preempted | EPA registration and label approval preempt state claims and would impose labeling requirements | FIFRA does not preempt Blitz's state-law damages claims; injunctive relief altering labels may be preempted but damages claims survive |
| Truthfulness/misleadingness of label under WDTPA | Label is literally false because EPSP exists in human gut bacteria; thus deceptive and induced purchase | Statement is accurate as to human/animal cells; literal falsity requires unanimous expert consensus; label does not mention gut bacteria | At pleading stage, taking allegations as true, the statement can be plausibly read as false or misleading; WDTPA claim survives dismissal |
| Express warranty and unjust enrichment | Seeks recovery from Monsanto for label representations and benefit retention | Warranty claim barred for failure to give timely notice; unjust enrichment fails because Blitz bought from retailer, not Monsanto | Breach of express warranty dismissed for failure to allege buyer notice; unjust-enrichment claim dismissed for failure to allege direct benefit conferred on Monsanto |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for surviving Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (FIFRA preemption framework for state labeling requirements)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (limits on state-court specific jurisdiction over nonresidents)
- Spierer v. Rossman, 798 F.3d 502 (Seventh Circuit discussion of pleading plausibility standard)
- Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (discussion of EPA approval not being dispositive on state-law claims)