508 F.Supp.3d 1369
S.D. Ga.2020Background
- Plaintiff John D. Carson, Sr. used Monsanto’s glyphosate-based product Roundup® routinely for ~30 years and was later diagnosed with malignant fibrous histiocytoma; he sued Monsanto alleging design defect (Count I), failure to warn (Count II), negligence (Count III), and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count IV).
- The Complaint references divergent regulatory findings: IARC (2015) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic," while an EPA letter (2019) concluded glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic" and stated labels with California-style cancer warnings would be "misbranded."
- Monsanto moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing (1) FIFRA expressly preempts state-law claims that impose labeling/packaging requirements, (2) implied (impossibility) preemption bars the remaining claims, and (3) Plaintiff inadequately pled a design-defect claim.
- The Court applied Georgia substantive law (lex loci delicti for torts; lex loci contractus for warranty) and treated the breach-of-implied-warranty claim as merchantability only.
- Ruling: the Court dismissed Count II (failure to warn) and Count IV (implied warranty) in full; it dismissed Counts I and III only to the extent they rely on labeling/packaging; the non-labeling design-defect and negligence claims survived; the Court rejected Monsanto’s impossibility-preemption argument and found the design-defect claim adequately pled.
- The Court denied Monsanto’s request for oral argument, lifted the stay, and ordered the parties to proceed with Rule 26(f) planning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims | Carson: claims are not about labels/packaging | Monsanto: FIFRA preempts any state labeling/packaging duties that are additional/different | Court: Failure-to-warn (Count II) is expressly preempted by FIFRA because a cancer warning conflicts with EPA-approved labeling |
| Whether FIFRA expressly preempts design-defect and negligence claims | Carson: claims challenge product design and duties other than labeling | Monsanto: portions that touch labeling/packaging are preempted | Court: Design-defect and negligence claims survive generally but are dismissed to the extent they are based on labeling/packaging |
| Whether impossibility (implied) preemption bars the non-labeling claims | Carson: not impossible to comply with both federal and state law for design claims | Monsanto: manufacturer cannot comply with both FIFRA and state-law duties (citing FDCA cases) | Court: Rejects impossibility preemption under FIFRA; declines to extend FDCA-impossibility reasoning here |
| Whether the design-defect claim is plausibly pled under Georgia risk-utility test | Carson: alleged Roundup® poses grave cancer risk and safer alternatives existed | Monsanto: complaint lacks factual risk-utility comparison and improperly seeks liability for a wholly different product | Court: Complaint adequately pleads risk outweighs utility and alleges feasible alternative designs; design-defect claim stands (except labeling-based theories) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court test for when FIFRA expressly preempts state labeling/packaging requirements)
- Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516 (11th Cir.) (holds implied warranty of merchantability can be preempted by FIFRA where the warranty includes labeling requirements)
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court decision on impossibility preemption under the FDCA, relied on and distinguished)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court explaining that impossibility preemption is a demanding defense)
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (Supreme Court recognizing that different federal statutes/regulatory schemes can produce different preemption outcomes)
- Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga.) (sets out Georgia risk-utility framework for design-defect claims)