Rubio v. Monsanto Co.
181 F. Supp. 3d 746
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Enrique Rubio and Yolanda Mendoza sued Monsanto alleging Roundup (glyphosate) caused their cancers and asserted strict products liability (design and failure to warn), negligence, and warranty claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2015.
- Rubio alleges occupational exposure in Oregon, California, and Texas (1986–1995) and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in Texas in 1995; Mendoza alleges residential exposure in Atwater, California (2004–2015) and was diagnosed with non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2012.
- Plaintiffs rely on IARC’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” and allege Monsanto misrepresented safety and suppressed contrary findings.
- Monsanto moved to sever Rubio and Mendoza, to transfer Rubio’s claim to the Western District of Texas and Mendoza’s to the Eastern District of California, and alternatively to dismiss; it also moved to stay proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed.
- The court found joinder permissible under Rule 20 could be arguable but exercised its discretion to sever on fairness and efficiency grounds given substantial differences in exposures, timing, treatments, witness locations, and applicable law.
- The court granted transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): Rubio’s case to the Western District of Texas (key medical witnesses and treatment there), Mendoza’s case to the Eastern District of California (her residence, exposure, and treatment), and denied Monsanto’s motions to dismiss and to stay as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 | Rubio and Mendoza: claims arise from same series of transactions (decades of Monsanto conduct), common questions of law/fact (product defect, Monsanto’s knowledge, IARC classification). | Monsanto: exposures differ in time, place, frequency, diagnosis, and governing law; joinder would be inefficient and prejudicial. | Court: Even if Rule 20 could be met, severance warranted in discretion for fairness/efficiency; granted severance. |
| Transfer of Rubio’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to W.D. Tex. | Rubio: Central District has some ties (part of exposure); plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves deference. | Monsanto: key witnesses (treating physicians), diagnosis, and substantial events are in W.D. Tex.; subpoena power and convenience favor transfer. | Court: Transfer granted — witness convenience, subpoena power, and interests of justice weigh heavily for transfer. |
| Transfer of Mendoza’s claim under § 1404(a) to E.D. Cal. | Mendoza: Central District lacks connection; minimal deference to her choice; her residence, exposure, and treatment are in E.D. Cal. | Monsanto: (same transfer arguments) | Court: Transfer granted — plaintiff’s choice entitled to minimal weight; key witnesses and events in E.D. Cal.; interests of justice favor transfer. |
| Motion to dismiss and motion to stay | Plaintiffs opposed dismissal/stay. | Monsanto moved alternatively to dismiss and to stay pending resolution. | Court: Motions to dismiss and to stay denied as moot after severance/transfers. |
Key Cases Cited
- League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg. Plan. Agency, 558 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1977) (permissive joinder construed liberally to promote convenience)
- Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) (logical-relationship test for "transaction or occurrence" under joinder rules)
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court discretion in severance under Rule 20)
- Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1980) (joinder must comport with fundamental fairness)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for § 1404(a) transfer and individualized inquiry)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2010) (definition of corporate "principal place of business" for diversity jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum unless balance strongly favors defendant)