{"cached_at":"2026-11-05T11:45:21.214914+00:00","cl_docket_id":"5981306","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","id":5981306,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/604/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9095/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2017-04-29T04:13:51.516517-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T14:02:35.621040-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Vince Chhabria","referred_to_str":"Alex G. Tse","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-05-15T03:55:00.867204-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2016-10-04","date_terminated":"2017-09-27","date_last_filing":"2026-11-04","case_name_short":"","case_name":"In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation","docket_number":"3:16-md-02741","docket_number_core":"1602741","docket_number_raw":"3:16-md-02741","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"md","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"VC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"303681","cause":"28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability","nature_of_suit":"365 Personal Inj. Prod. Liability","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Diversity","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861808/","id":23861808,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13886752/","attorney_id":13886752,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13886752/","attorney_id":13886752,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:29:50.623166-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:29:50.623191-07:00","name":"Rebecca B Phelps","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861793/","id":23861793,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10179091/","attorney_id":10179091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10179091/","attorney_id":10179091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-09-17","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 09/17/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:27:00.501667-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:27:00.501760-07:00","name":"Jay Schwartz","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861792/","id":23861792,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10179091/","attorney_id":10179091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10179091/","attorney_id":10179091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-09-17","extra_info":"Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN DORRILL JR., deceased (member case no. 3:24-cv-09530-VC)\nTERMINATED: 09/17/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:26:59.342627-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:26:59.342655-07:00","name":"Carol Dorrill","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861791/","id":23861791,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575094/","attorney_id":6575094,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575094/","attorney_id":6575094,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-09-17","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 09/17/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:26:10.772879-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:26:10.772908-07:00","name":"Wendy McDaris","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861785/","id":23861785,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8844287/","attorney_id":8844287,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8844287/","attorney_id":8844287,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-09-17","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 09/17/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:23:44.942816-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:23:44.942838-07:00","name":"Rory Bowman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23861747/","id":23861747,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135524/","attorney_id":6135524,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135524/","attorney_id":6135524,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-09-17","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 09/17/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-05T09:21:08.081340-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-05T09:21:08.081368-07:00","name":"Janet Hartley","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23721560/","id":23721560,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"26-cv-09385 VC","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T01:52:16.196031-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T01:52:16.196043-07:00","name":"Jeffrey Moore","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23721452/","id":23721452,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574538/","attorney_id":6574538,"date_action":"2026-08-31","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574538/","attorney_id":6574538,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575169/","attorney_id":6575169,"date_action":"2026-08-31","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575169/","attorney_id":6575169,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575170/","attorney_id":6575170,"date_action":"2026-08-31","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575170/","attorney_id":6575170,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6825384/","attorney_id":6825384,"date_action":"2026-08-31","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6825384/","attorney_id":6825384,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575171/","attorney_id":6575171,"date_action":"2026-08-31","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6575171/","attorney_id":6575171,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-08-31","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 08/31/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T01:36:38.758718-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T01:36:38.758728-07:00","name":"Randy Bodiford","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23510838/","id":23510838,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574805/","attorney_id":6574805,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574805/","attorney_id":6574805,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"3:26-cv-08263-VC","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-13T09:20:39.947885-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T09:20:39.947895-07:00","name":"Paul Brown, Sr.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23510373/","id":23510373,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574895/","attorney_id":6574895,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574895/","attorney_id":6574895,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":"2026-08-11","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 08/11/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-13T08:51:39.846113-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T08:51:39.846122-07:00","name":"Hal Frank Wotitzky","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20375429/","id":20375429,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574672/","attorney_id":6574672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.083459-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.083468-07:00","name":"Godfrey Perriott","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20375428/","id":20375428,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13886776/","attorney_id":13886776,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13886776/","attorney_id":13886776,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"3:26-cv-06488-VC","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.055105-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.055114-07:00","name":"Aniko Blake","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20375427/","id":20375427,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574982/","attorney_id":6574982,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6574982/","attorney_id":6574982,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"3:26-cv-07869-VC","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.021397-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T00:21:08.021406-07:00","name":"Louis Berti","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292470/","id":20292470,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7435810/","attorney_id":7435810,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Attorney for David Seieroe","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:32.170190-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:32.170208-07:00","name":"Natalie Hein","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292469/","id":20292469,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13886806/","attorney_id":13886806,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.611699-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.611715-07:00","name":"Professor David Freeman Engstrom","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292468/","id":20292468,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8360866/","attorney_id":8360866,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.556116-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.556131-07:00","name":"Fred Birner","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292467/","id":20292467,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.513793-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.513807-07:00","name":"Jeff Sovern","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292466/","id":20292466,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.478632-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.478647-07:00","name":"Myriam Gilles","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292465/","id":20292465,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6135264/","attorney_id":6135264,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.428219-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.428233-07:00","name":"Andrew I. Silber","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20292464/","id":20292464,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6960784/","attorney_id":6960784,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","docket_id":5981306,"name":"Amicus","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.388922-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-29T23:43:31.388938-07:00","name":"Dean Erwin Chemerinski","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484432001/","id":484432001,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500272482/","id":500272482,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22755/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-04T14:02:35.790647-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T14:02:35.800291-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22755","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027889247","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-04T14:02:35.771863-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T14:02:35.778104-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-04","time_filed":"13:38:57","entry_number":22755,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":89937,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484397598/","id":484397598,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500237443/","id":500237443,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-11-04T11:58:01.487265-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:58:01.487278-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"MDL Member Case Closed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-04T11:58:01.440393-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:58:01.440404-08:00","date_filed":"2025-08-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-08-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484397525/","id":484397525,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500237370/","id":500237370,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-11-04T11:57:44.917967-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:44.917980-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"MDL Member Case Closed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-04T11:57:44.904903-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:44.904918-08:00","date_filed":"2026-03-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484308105/","id":484308105,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500144507/","id":500144507,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22754/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-03T17:02:05.106446-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.683925-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22754","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027884967","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500181282/","id":500181282,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22754/1/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-04T07:45:43.259798-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T07:45:43.259819-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":410814,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22754","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027884968","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Certificate of Good Standing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-03T17:02:05.080560-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T07:11:29.740315-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-03","time_filed":"16:33:54","entry_number":22754,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":89932,"description":"MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Jeffrey S. Bucholtz ( Filing fee $ 328, receipt number ACANDC-22679409.) filed by The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, The Washington Legal Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Bucholtz, Jeffrey) (Filed on 11/3/2026) (Entered: 11/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484220855/","id":484220855,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500055746/","id":500055746,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22753/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-03T09:36:19.055729-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.635562-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22753","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027880883","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-03T09:36:19.022282-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T07:11:29.723518-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-03","time_filed":"09:21:04","entry_number":22753,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":89928,"description":"MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 328, receipt number ACANDC-22675195.) filed by CropLife America. (Coffin, Shannen) (Filed on 11/3/2026) (Entered: 11/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484212567/","id":484212567,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500047348/","id":500047348,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22752/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-03T09:05:16.116508-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T09:05:16.145228-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22752","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027880561","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-03T09:05:16.061876-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T07:11:29.505385-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22752,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.007","pacer_sequence_number":89926,"description":"CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-592) by MDL Panel on 10/30/2026 (kab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 11/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483961450/","id":483961450,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499791976/","id":499791976,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22744/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.463202-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.799613-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22744","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.415126-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.436270-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22744,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Order by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 22742 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document in case 3:16-md-02741-VC. The document filed at 22740 in case 3:16-md-02741-VC and 33 in case 3:21-cv-07124-VC has been locked from the public docket. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Associated Cases: 3:16-md-02741-VC, 3:21-cv-07124-VC (crblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2026) (Entered: 10/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483771731/","id":483771731,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499595102/","id":499595102,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22751/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T17:36:23.187378-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.772275-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22751","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027871772","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499767169/","id":499767169,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22751/1/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T04:05:16.715021-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T19:28:21.696351-08:00","sha1":"fef00c679ad583d1b6b5d062bd7bde640f2e433b","page_count":27,"file_size":148286,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.22751.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.22751.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 27\n PageID #: 453962\n\n\n\n 1 STEPTOE LLP STEPTOE LLP\n 2\n Melanie A. Ayerh, SBN 303211 Anthony Hopp, Illinois SBN: 6199290\n mayerh@steptoe.com Christopher L. Yeatman. Illinois SBN:\n 3 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900 6342980\n Los Angeles, California 90071 Pro Hac Vice Anticipated\n 4 Telephone: (213) 439-9432 ahopp@steptoe.com\n 5 Facsimile: (213) 439-9599 cyeatman@steptoe.com\n 227 West Monroe St., Suite 4700\n 6 STEPTOE LLP Chicago, Illinois 60606\n Shannen W. Coffin, DC Bar #449197 Telephone: (312) 577-1300\n 7 Michael Boucher, DC Bar #453008 Facsimile: (312) 577-1370\n 8 Pro Hac Vice Anticipated\n scoffin@steptoe.com\n 9 mboucher@steptoe.com\n10\n 1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20036\n11 Telephone: (202) 429-3000\n Facsimile: (202) 429-3902\n12\n13 Counsel for Amicus Curiae CropLife\n America\n14\n15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n17\n18 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS ) Case No.: 3:16-md-02741-vc\n )\n19 LIABILITY LITIGATION ) MDL No. 2741\n )\n20 ) CROPLIFE AMERICA\u2019S BRIEF\n21 This document relates to: ) OF AMICUS CURIAE IN\n ) SUPPORT OF DEFEFNDANT\u2019S\n22 All Category One cases ) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY\n )\n23 ) JUDGMENT\n )\n24 ) Hearing Date: November 16, 2026\n )\n25 ) Time: 1:00 p.m. PT\n ) Place: Courtroom 3, 450 Golden\n26 ) Gate Ave.,\n ) 17th Floor, San Francisco,\n27 )\n ) CA 94102\n28\n\n\n\n 1\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 27\n PageID #: 453963\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................................... 8\n 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 8\n 4\n BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 10\n 5\n I. FIFRA Overview .............................................................................................................. 10\n 6\n II. EPA\u2019s Review of Glyphosate-Based Products ................................................................. 13\n 7\n ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 17\n 8\n 9 I. Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims are Preempted to the Extent They Rely on a Failure-to-Warn Legal\n Theory. .............................................................................................................................. 17\n10\n A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Negligence Claims Impose Labeling Requirements in Addition to or\n11 Different From EPA\u2019s and Are Therefore Preempted. ......................................... 19\n12\n B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims Impose Labeling Requirements in Addition to or\n13 Different From EPA\u2019s and Are Therefore Preempted. ......................................... 19\n\n14 C. Plaintiffs\u2019 Warranty Claims Impose Labeling Requirements In Addition to or\n Different From EPA\u2019s and are Therefore Preempted. .......................................... 21\n15\n16 II. Durnell Applies to All FIFRA \u201cLabeling,\u201d Not Merely the Container \u201cLabel.\u201d .............. 22\n\n17 III. To the Extent Plaintiffs Assert \u201cGenuine\u201d Design Defect Claims, They are Impliedly\n Preempted. ........................................................................................................................ 24\n18\n A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims are Preempted Because They Would Effectively\n19 Require Manufacturers to Withdraw from the Pesticide Market. ......................... 24\n20\n B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims are Impliedly Preempted Because They Disrupt\n21 the Regulatory Scheme for Pesticides Envisioned by Congress. .......................... 25\n22 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 26\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n 2\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 27\n PageID #: 453964\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2 Cases Page(s)\n 3 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp.,\n 4 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015).......................................................................................................20\n\n 5 Banks v. ICI Ams., Inc.,\n 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1994).......................................................................................................20\n 6\n Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC,\n 7 544 U.S. 431 (2005) .................................................................................................................18\n 8\n Crosby v. Nat\u2019l Foreign Trade Council,\n 9 530 U.S. 363 (2000) .................................................................................................................25\n10 Durkee v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.,\n 765 F. Supp. 2d 742 (W.D.N.C. 2011) ....................................................................................19\n11\n12 Elliott v. El Paso Corp.,\n 181 So. 3d 263 (Miss. 2015) ....................................................................................................20\n13\n Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,\n14 529 U.S. 861 (2000) .................................................................................................................26\n15\n Jarman v. United Indus. Corp.,\n16 98 F. Supp. 2d 757 (S.D. Miss. 2000)......................................................................................21\n\n17 Jenkins v. James B. Day & Co.,\n 69 Ohio St.3d 541 (1994).........................................................................................................22\n18\n19 Jones v. Rath Packing Co.,\n 430 U.S. 519 (1977) .................................................................................................................10\n20\n Lowe v. Sporicidin Int'l,\n21 47 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................22\n22\n Marzullo v. Crosman Corp.,\n23 289 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2003) ...................................................................................19\n\n24 McSwain v. Sunrise Med., Inc.,\n 689 F. Supp. 2d 835 (S.D. Miss. 2010)....................................................................................19\n25\n26 Monsanto Co. v. Durnell,\n 609 U.S. 371 (2026) ......................................................................................................... passim\n27\n Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett,\n28 570 U.S. 472 (2013) .....................................................................................................23, 24, 25\n\n 3\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 27\n PageID #: 453965\n\n\n\n 1 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,\n 38 F.4th 34 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................................17\n 2\n Oken v. Monsanto Co.,\n 3\n 218 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla.2002) .....................................................................................20\n 4\n Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm\u2019n,\n 5 461 U.S. 190 (1983) .................................................................................................................24\n 6 Papas v. Upjohn Co.,\n 7 985 F. 2d 516 (11th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................21, 22, 23\n\n 8 Papike v. Tambrands Inc.,\n 107 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................20\n 9\n Rheinfrank v. Abbott Lab'ys, Inc.,\n10\n 119 F. Supp. 3d 749 (S.D. Ohio 2015), aff\u2019d, 680 F. App'x 369 (6th Cir. 2017) ....................19\n11\n Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,\n12 467 U.S. 987 (1984) .................................................................................................................10\n13 Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp.,\n14 113 F.4th 385 (3d Cir. 2024) ...................................................................................................13\n\n15 Sparks v. Oxy-Health LLC,\n 134 F. Supp. 3d 961 (E.D.N.C. 2015)......................................................................................20\n16\n Wheeler v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.,\n17\n 944 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Ga. 2013) .....................................................................................19\n18\n Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.,\n19 562 U.S. 323 (2011) .................................................................................................................26\n20 Zang v. Cones,\n21 34 N.E.3d 955 (Ohio App. 2015).............................................................................................20\n\n22 Statutes\n\n23 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136 et seq........................................................................................................................8\n24 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(bb) .....................................................................................................................8, 11\n25\n 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(p)(1) ................................................................................................................11, 22\n26\n 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(q) .....................................................................................................................12, 22\n27\n 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(u) ...........................................................................................................................10\n28\n 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a ..............................................................................................................8, 10, 11, 14\n 4\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 27\n PageID #: 453966\n\n\n\n 1 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136d ..............................................................................................................................26\n 2 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136j.........................................................................................................................13, 23\n 3 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v ........................................................................................................9, 10, 18, 19, 26\n 4\n Other Authorities\n 5\n 40 C.F.R. pt. 158 ............................................................................................................................14\n 6\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 152.5(c).......................................................................................................................10\n 7\n 8 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 152.44 ...................................................................................................................13, 24\n\n 9 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 152.112(f) ...................................................................................................................13\n\n10 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 155.40-155.58 ...........................................................................................................11\n11 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 155.50 .........................................................................................................................11\n12\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 155.58(b)(4) ................................................................................................................11\n13\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.10 ...................................................................................................................12, 13\n14\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.62 .........................................................................................................................12\n15\n16 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.64 .........................................................................................................................12\n\n17 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.68 .........................................................................................................................12\n\n18 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.70-156.78 ...........................................................................................................12\n19 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.80-156.85 ...........................................................................................................12\n20\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.140 .......................................................................................................................13\n21\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.144 .......................................................................................................................13\n22\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.146 .......................................................................................................................13\n23\n 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.156 .......................................................................................................................13\n24\n25 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.130 .......................................................................................................................15\n\n26 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.500(d) ..................................................................................................................14\n\n27 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.500(e)(19) ............................................................................................................14\n28 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 158.1000\u20131070 .........................................................................................................14\n\n 5\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 27\n PageID #: 453967\n\n\n\n 1 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 168.22 .........................................................................................................................23\n 2 Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide\n Tolerances, 62 Fed. Reg. 17,723\n 3\n (Apr. 11, 1997) .........................................................................................................................15\n 4\n Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide\n 5 Tolerances,67 Fed. Reg. 60,934\n (Sept. 27, 2002) ........................................................................................................................15\n 6\n 7 Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide\n Tolerances,73 Fed. Reg. 73,5869\n 8 (Dec. 3, 2008) ..........................................................................................................................15\n 9 EPA Materials\n10\n Glyphosate: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration\n11 Review, Case No. 0178 (Dec. 12, 2017),\n https://www.regulationsgov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0068 ................................16\n12\n Glyphosate: Interim Registration Review Decision, Case No. 0178 (Jan. 2020)\n13 https://tinyurl.com/2s9ht99v ....................................................................................................17\n14\n Glyphosate: Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, Case No. 0178\n15 (Apr. 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-\n 0361-2344 ................................................................................................................................16\n16\n17 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Mar. 2005),\n https://perma.cc/86MQ-MG3W ...............................................................................................14\n18\n Letter to Glyphosate Registrants on California Proposition 65 (Aug. 7, 2019),\n19 https://tinyurl.com/53eb7685 .............................................................................................16, 17\n20 Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Registration Notice 98-10: Notifications,\n21 Non-Notifications and Minor Formulation Amendments (Oct. 22, 1998),\n https://tinyurl.com/mtycc4b .....................................................................................................13\n22\n Office of Pesticide Programs, Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of\n23 Carcinogenic Potential (Dec. 12, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/56xb5bed ............................15, 16\n24\n Pesticide Registration Manual: Introduction,\n25 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/pesticide-registration-\n manual-introduction.pdf...........................................................................................................14\n26\n Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Glyphosate (Sept. 1993) ............................................15\n27\n28 EPA, R.E.D. Facts, Glyphosate (Sept. 1993), https://tinyurl.com/4rpwv9bz ................................15\n\n\n 6\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 27\n PageID #: 453968\n\n\n\n 1 Ingredients Used in Pesticide Products: Glyphosate,\n https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate....................................15\n 2\n \u201cCost Estimates of Studies Required for Pesticide Registration,\u201d April 2025 ................................8\n 3\n 4 \u201cIntroduction to Pesticide Labels\u201d (April 2025) ............................................................................11\n\n 5 Publications\n 6 AgbioInvestor, \u201cTime and Cost of New Agrochemical Product Discovery,\n 7 Development, and Registration,\u201d A Study on Behalf of Crop Life International\n (Feb. 2024) .................................................................................................................................8\n 8\n Other Authorities\n 9\n European Chemicals Agency, Glyphosate: no change proposed to hazard\n10 classification (May 30, 2022) ..................................................................................................17\n11\n European Food Safety Authority, Glyphosate: no critical areas of concern; data\n12 gaps identified (July 6, 2023)...................................................................................................17\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n 7\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 27\n PageID #: 453969\n\n\n\n 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE\n 2 CropLife America respectfully files brief amicus curiae in response to this Court\u2019s\n 3 invitation for briefing addressing the scope of federal preemption on various state tort claims. See\n 4 Dkt. 22732. Established in 1933, CropLife America is the national trade association for the\n 5 pesticide industry, representing developers, manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of\n 6 pesticides and plant science solutions. CropLife America\u2019s member companies produce, sell, and\n 7 distribute pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, which American farmers\n 8 use to provide consumers with abundant food, fuel, and fiber. CropLife America is committed to\n 9 safe and responsible use of the industry\u2019s products.1\n10 CropLife America submits that this Court will benefit from its members\u2019 substantial\n11 experience in the realm of federal and state pesticide regulation and their understanding of Federal\n12 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (\u201cFIFRA\u201d), which broadly preempts state laws that\n13 prescribe requirements different from or in addition to federal labeling and packaging\n14 requirements. See 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(b). EPA\u2019s review process has resulted in repeated\n15 determinations that glyphosate-based pesticides are unlikely to cause cancer and that a cancer\n16 warning should not be included on the product labels. EPA\u2019s labeling determination, made as part\n17 of pesticide registration and registration review, controls and preempts the various tort claims\n18 with respect to which this Court has sought amicus briefing.\n19 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT\n20 FIFRA preempts any state law requirements that seek to vary pesticides\u2019 EPA-approved\n21 labeling or formulation, especially when, as is the case for the glyphosate-based products at issue\n22 in this proceeding, EPA has carefully reviewed the science and determined that the products\n23 \u201cwhen used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice [] will not\n24 generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,\u201d including \u201cany unreasonable\n25\n26 1\n No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did such counsel, any\n27 party, or other person other than amicus curiae, its members, and its counsel make monetary\n contributions intended to fund the brief\u2019s preparation. Monsanto Company\u2019s (\u201cMonsanto\u201d)\n28 parent company, Bayer Corp., is a member of CropLife America and pays member dues but did\n not contribute any money specifically intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief.\n 8\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 27\n PageID #: 453970\n\n\n\n 1 risk to man[.]\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a(c)(5)(D); 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(bb). In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the\n 2 Supreme Court held that a lay jury cannot subject a registrant to tort liability under state law for\n 3 not including a health and safety warning on its label where, as here, EPA has affirmatively\n 4 declined to include the warning as part of its federal regulation of that pesticide label. 609 U.S.\n 5 371 (2026).\n 6 Durnell\u2019s reasoning applies more broadly, however, to preclude state tort claims that\n 7 would functionally require manufacturers to change the formulation of a registered and EPA-\n 8 approved product and/or restrict product-related statements that are consistent with the EPA-\n 9 approved labeling. Durnell confirms that FIFRA preemption extends to any state-law claim\n10 seeking to impose a duty on the pesticide manufacturer that would require it to depart from EPA-\n11 approved labeling. As applied here, Plaintiffs\u2019 negligence, design defect, and warranty claims\n12 therefore are expressly preempted to the extent they rest on Monsanto\u2019s alleged failure to provide\n13 a cancer warning. That conclusion applies to all FIFRA \u201clabeling,\u201d not merely the physical label\n14 attached to a pesticide container. Plaintiffs cannot evade preemption by demanding the same\n15 cancer warning in accompanying or referenced materials. Nor may they recast that theory as a\n16 challenge to advertising or promotional statements where the demanded statements would conflict\n17 with claims EPA approved in connection with a pesticide\u2019s registration.\n18 The preemption hurdles faced by the MDL Plaintiffs go well beyond the express\n19 preemption issue explicitly decided in Durnell. To the extent Plaintiffs\u2019 claims challenge\n20 Roundup\u00ae\u2019s formulation, those claims are also impliedly preempted. A state-law duty requiring\n21 Monsanto to alter Roundup\u00ae\u2019s EPA-approved formulation would obstruct FIFRA\u2019s uniform\n22 regulatory framework and conflict with a pesticide manufacturers\u2019 obligations under FIFRA,\n23 effectively compelling Monsanto to withdraw the product from the market to avoid state tort\n24 liability\u2014as it has already done with consumer applications. But state law liability cannot flow\n25 from a pesticide manufacturer\u2019s compliance with EPA\u2019s decisions to grant a pesticide registration\n26 and the pesticide label that accompanies it.\n27 Allowing juries to override EPA\u2019s expert determinations would expose manufacturers to\n28 massive liability for complying with federal requirements, threaten beneficial pesticide uses, and\n\n\n 9\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 27\n PageID #: 453971\n\n\n\n 1 replace nationwide uniformity with conflicting state mandates. FIFRA\u2019s preemption clause\n 2 expressly preempts \u201cany state tort claim\u201d that would require a pesticide manufacturer to use\n 3 labeling different from or in addition to the EPA-approved labeling. Durnell, 609 U.S. at 390-91.\n 4 The various state tort claims advanced by the Plaintiffs here\u2014specifically, their negligence,\n 5 design defect, and breach of express and implied warranty claims\u2014seek that outcome. The Court\n 6 should grant Monsanto summary judgment on all such claims.\n 7 BACKGROUND\n 8 I. FIFRA Overview\n 9 State law is expressly preempted when Congress \u201chas prohibited state regulation of the\n10 particular aspects of commerce involved in this case.\u201d Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519,\n11 525 (1977). FIFRA, the \u201ccomprehensive regulatory statute\u201d governing the sale, use, and labeling\n12 of \u201cpesticides,\u201d Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 987, 991 (1984), does just that. Congress\n13 included a \u201cUniformity\u201d provision in the statute, expressly providing that a State \u201cshall not\n14 impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different\n15 from those required under\u201d the statute. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(b). This express preemption provision\n16 protects \u201cEPA\u2019s comprehensive and exclusive authority in registering pesticides and approving\n17 labels.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 380.\n18 FIFRA prohibits the sale of \u201cany pesticide that is not registered.\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a(a).2\n19 EPA \u201cshall register a pesticide\u201d only if it determines that, \u201cwhen considered with any restrictions\n20 imposed,\u201d the pesticide meets four general requirements: 1) its composition is such as to warrant\n21 the proposed claims for it; 2) its labeling complies with FIFRA\u2019s requirements; 3) it will perform\n22 its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and 4) when used\n23 in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause\n24 unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a(c)(5).\n25\n26\n 2 FIFRA defines \u201cpesticide\u201d to include \u201cany substance or mixture of substances intended for\n27\n preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest\u201d (7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(u)) and encompasses\n28 glyphosate-based herbicides. See 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 152.5(c) (defining \u201cpest\u201d to include \u201cany plant\n growing where not wanted\u201d).\n 10\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 27\n PageID #: 453972\n\n\n\n 1 FIFRA defines \u201cunreasonable adverse effects on the environment\u201d to mean \u201cany\n 2 unreasonable risk to man or the environment,\u201d a calculus that requires EPA to balance the\n 3 \u201ceconomic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.\u201d Id. \u00a7\n 4 136(bb). It also includes consideration of any \u201chuman dietary risk from residues that result from\n 5 a use of a pesticide\u201d on food inconsistent with Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act safety\n 6 standards. Id.\n 7 After a pesticide is registered, FIFRA requires EPA to conduct a registration review every\n 8 15 years to determine whether the pesticide continues to satisfy registration standards. See\n 9 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a(g); 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 155.40-155.58. This process involves an up-to-date review of\n10 the relevant science under notice-and-comment procedures. See 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 155.50(b), (c); see\n11 also 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 155.58(b)(4) (requiring EPA to specify proposed labeling changes as part of\n12 registration review).\n13 The label attached to a pesticide product, other written, printed, or graphic matter\n14 accompanying the product, and materials referenced on the label or in accompanying literature\u2014\n15 all of which can qualify as \u201clabeling\u201d\u2014are a central focus of EPA\u2019s registration and registration\n16 review processes.3 FIFRA and its implementing regulations require EPA to review and approve\n17 the pesticide label, including necessary human health and safety warnings, and generally prohibit\n18 any change to that label without EPA approval. See Durnell, 609 U.S. at 377-78, 390-91. Once\n19 approved by EPA, the \u201clabel is the law.\u201d4\n20 EPA reviews a pesticide label to ensure that, among other things, it contains warnings and\n21 cautionary statements \u201cadequate to protect health and the environment,\u201d and that the overall\n22\n23\n 3 Though the terms are closely related, FIFRA separately defines the \u201clabel\u201d and \u201clabeling.\u201d\n24 \u201cThe term \u2018label\u2019 means the written, printed or graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide or\n device or any of its containers or wrappers.\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(p)(1). A pesticide label is a subset of\n25\n the overall product \u201clabeling\u201d: \u201cThe term \u2018labeling\u2019 means all labels and all other written, printed\n26 or graphic matter (A) accompanying the pesticide or device at any time; or (B) to which reference\n is made on the label or in literature accompanying the pesticide or device, except to certain official\n27 publications. Id. at \u00a7 136(p)(2).\n 4\n28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, \u201cIntroduction to Pesticide Labels\u201d (April 2025),\n https://tinyurl.com/5n8kdeh2.\n 11\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 27\n PageID #: 453973\n\n\n\n 1 labeling does not contain any \u201cstatement, design, or graphic representation relative thereto or to\n 2 its ingredients which is false or misleading.\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 136(q)(1)(A), (G). For example, if a\n 3 label refers to a manual on how to apply the pesticide, that manual is also labeling that the user\n 4 must follow and EPA must approve.5\n 5 \u201cPesticide product labels provide critical information about how to safely and legally\n 6 handle and apply pesticides.\u201d EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Label Review Manual 1-2.6 A\n 7 \u201ccritical function of the label is to translate the results of the science evaluations into a set of\n 8 conditions, directions, precautions, and restrictions that define who may use a pesticide, as well\n 9 as where, how, how much, and how often it may be used.\u201d Id. The accuracy of the label is \u201cvital\u201d\n10 to EPA\u2019s (and other governmental agencies\u2019) management and mitigation of pesticide risks; to\n11 these agencies\u2019 enforcement of pesticide production, distribution, sale, and use requirements; to\n12 registrants, including manufacturers and distributors; to applicators, who rely on the label for use\n13 instructions and hazard and safety information; and to the general public. Id.\n14 EPA\u2019s regulations govern not only the size, format, and location of the label but also its\n15 contents. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.10. Pesticide labels convey information such as application\n16 rates, application intervals, and required personal protective equipment. Many other details are\n17 required, such as the product\u2019s contents, the sites of application, the target pests, and application\n18 methods.\n19 The label also contains important health and safety information, such as the applicable\n20 acute toxicity category and associated signal word determined by EPA (see 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.62,\n21 156.64) and hazard and precautionary statements for humans and domestic animals (40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7\n22 156.70-156.78) and for the environment, including non-target organisms (40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.80-\n23 156.85). Hazard and precautionary statements for humans and domestic animals include\n24 information on first aid, in case of unintended exposure to the pesticide. See 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 156.68.\n25 The label must also include directions for storage, residue removal, and disposal of the pesticide\n26\n27\n 5\n28 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-labels/label-review-training-module-1-label-basics-page-3.\n 6\n https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/202412/label_review_manual_12122024.pdf.\n 12\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 27\n PageID #: 453974\n\n\n\n 1 and its container (see, e.g., 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.140, 156.144, 156.146, 156.156). EPA will not\n 2 approve a proposed label or grant a registration if the label is missing any required information.\n 3 e.g., 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 156.10(a)(1), 152.112(f).\n 4 FIFRA prohibits distributing or selling a misbranded pesticide. A pesticide may be\n 5 misbranded if its labeling bears false or misleading statements, if its label omits necessary\n 6 warnings, or if required label or labeling information is not prominently placed. 7 U.S.C.\n 7 \u00a7\u00a7 136j(a)(1)(E), 136j(a)(2)(A), 136(q)(1)(A), (E), (G). EPA\u2019s regulations generally require\n 8 amended registration (subject to EPA approval) before a registrant may distribute or sell a product\n 9 with a label different from that approved by EPA. See generally, Durnell, 609 U.S. at 383-86.\n10 Distributing or selling a misbranded pesticide may result in civil or criminal penalties as well as\n11 stop sale, use, and removal orders and seizure. Durnell, 609 U.S. at 378 (citing 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n12 136J(A)(1)(e), 136l).\n13 With narrow exceptions for certain \u201cminor\u201d modifications, once the label is approved as\n14 part of pesticide registration, \u201cany modification in the . . . labeling . . . of a registered product\n15 must be submitted with an application for amended registration . . . [and such] application must\n16 be approved by the Agency before the product, as modified, may legally be distributed or sold.\u201d\n17 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 152.44(a), (c). Changes in precautionary statements are not \u201cminor modifications\u201d\n18 and must be approved in advance by EPA.7 See Durnell, 609 U.S. at 405 n.5; Schaffner v.\n19 Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 385, 384 n.11 (3d Cir. 2024).\n20 II. EPA\u2019s Review of Glyphosate-Based Products\n21 EPA approves a pesticide label only after exhaustive review of the best available science\n22 relating to the pesticide\u2019s effects on safety and human health. EPA\u2019s Pesticide Registration\n23 Manual explains that \u201c[b]efore any pesticide product that EPA has not exempted from registration\n24\n25\n26\n27 7\n EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Registration Notice 98-10: Notifications, Non-\n28 Notifications and Minor Formulation Amendments at 8 (Oct. 22, 1998),\n https://tinyurl.com/mtycc4bp.\n 13\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 27\n PageID #: 453975\n\n\n\n 1 requirements can be lawfully sold or distributed, EPA performs a rigorous, comprehensive\n 2 scientific assessment of the product, resulting in a registration decision.\u201d8\n 3 FIFRA and its implementing regulations require registrants to provide substantial\n 4 scientific data to support a pesticide\u2019s safety and health effects. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 136a(c)(1)(F),\n 5 (c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.500(d) (toxicology data requirements); see generally 40 C.F.R. pt. 158.\n 6 There are substantial data requirements addressing the toxicology of the pesticide, including\n 7 studies relating to the likelihood that a particular pesticide could cause cancer in laboratory\n 8 rodents. 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.500(d). EPA regulations require registrants to satisfy data requirements\n 9 covering a broad range of additional topics, such as: the physical and chemical makeup of the\n10 pesticide; the acute, sub-chronic, and chronic toxicity of the pesticide; the effect of the pesticide\n11 on various plants and animals; and the degree to which humans will be exposed to the pesticide\n12 during its intended use. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. pt. 158.\n13 EPA \u201crequires robust evidence of a pesticide's potential carcinogenicity as a part of\n14 registration,\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 405 n.5, and uses registration data to identify the potential for\n15 various adverse effects such as neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity,\n16 immunotoxicity, and as relevant here, cancer. E.g., 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.500(e)(19) (prescribing\n17 minimum acceptable study durations for studies that combine chronic oral toxicity and\n18 carcinogenicity); 40 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 158.1000\u20131070 (testing for human exposure); see also, e.g., EPA\n19 Health Effects Test Guideline 870.4200 (Carcinogenicity);9 EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk\n20 Assessment (Mar. 2005).10 EPA develops dose-response assessments (determining the\n21 relationship between the dose and potential toxic effects) for a wide variety of species (e.g.,\n22 humans to fish) and a wide variety of potential responses (e.g., acute effects on skin or eyes,\n23\n24\n25\n 8\n See EPA Pesticide Registration Manual: Introduction,\n26 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/pesticide-registration-manual-\n27 introduction.pdf.\n 9\n28 See https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0156-0020.\n 10\n See https://perma.cc/86MQ-MG3W.\n 14\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 27\n PageID #: 453976\n\n\n\n 1 chronic neurological or reproductive effects, and carcinogenicity). E.g., 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 158.130\n 2 (\u201cPurposes of the registration data requirements\u201d).\n 3 In light of these rigorous standards, EPA\u2019s decision not to require a cancer warning for\n 4 glyphosate-based pesticides was no accident. It was the result of decades of evaluation of the\n 5 relevant scientific evidence. The approved label reflects EPA\u2019s repeated conclusion that\n 6 glyphosate-based pesticides are not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA issued its initial\n 7 glyphosate registration in 1974 and issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision for the active\n 8 ingredient glyphosate in 1993 after a thorough examination of the underlying data.11 In more than\n 9 50 years since the original registration, EPA has concluded again and again that glyphosate does\n10 not pose a cancer risk to humans.\n11 Acting on the recommendation of a scientific peer review committee in the early 1990s,\n12 EPA found \u201cevidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.\u201d12 The Agency reiterated that finding\n13 in a formal rule in 1997 and again in subsequent rulemakings.13\n14 In 2009, EPA opened its most recent registration review, which has entailed an extensive\n15 review of glyphosate\u2019s environmental safety and toxicology data after numerous rounds of public\n16 notice and comment. After review by both EPA\u2019s Cancer Assessment Review Committee and a\n17 Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA published a Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper evaluating the\n18 pesticide\u2019s carcinogenic potential.14 This extensive review of \u201cnew science\u201d included assessment\n19 of \u201c63 epidemiological studies, 14 animal carcinogenicity studies, and nearly 90 genotoxicity\n20 studies for the active ingredient glyphosate.\u201d15 EPA concluded that \u201cavailable data and weight-\n21\n22 11\n See EPA, Ingredients Used in Pesticide Products: Glyphosate,\n https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate; EPA, Reregistration\n23\n Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate (Sept. 1993), https://tinyurl.com/4rewtdnp.\n24 12\n See EPA, R.E.D. Facts, Glyphosate, at 2 (Sept. 1993), https://tinyurl.com/4rpwv9bz.\n25 13\n Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances, 62 Fed. Reg. 17,723, 17,724 (Apr. 11, 1997);\n see also Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances, 67 Fed. Reg. 60,934, 60,936 (Sept. 27,\n26 2002); Final Rule: Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances, 73 Fed. Reg. 73,586, 73,589 (Dec. 3, 2008).\n27 14\n See EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of\n28 Carcinogenic Potential (Dec. 12, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/56xb5bed.\n 15\n Id. at 144.\n 15\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 27\n PageID #: 453977\n\n\n\n 1 of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors \u2018carcinogenic to humans\u2019\u201d or \u201c\u2018likely to be\n 2 carcinogenic to humans.\u2019\u201d16 Instead, the scientific evidence most strongly supports the description\n 3 \u201cnot likely to be carcinogenic to humans.\u201d17 Durnell, 609 U.S. at 371.\n 4 Notably, EPA concluded this assessment after the International Agency for Research of\n 5 Cancer (IARC) announced its view, upon which glyphosate plaintiffs nationwide base their\n 6 claims, that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. Id. at 379-381. EPA\u2019s scientific review led to\n 7 its Draft Human Health Risk Assessment, which, after notice and comment, concluded that\n 8 glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.18 After considering thousands of public comments,\n 9 EPA issued its \u201cProposed Interim Registration Review Decision,\u201d reaffirming that its\n10 \u201cindependent evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate . . . has determined that\n11 glyphosate is \u2018not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.\u2019\u201d19 EPA expressly rejected IARC\u2019s cancer\n12 conclusion, explaining that EPA\u2019s \u201ccancer evaluation is more robust than IARC\u2019s evaluation,\u201d\n13 which \u201conly considered a subset of the studies included in the EPA\u2019s evaluation\u201d and included\n14 \u201csome studies that were not appropriate for determining the human carcinogenic potential of\n15 glyphosate.\u201d20\n16 After this extensive process, EPA\u2019s Office of Pesticide Programs sent an August 2019\n17 letter to all glyphosate registrants reiterating that it \u201cdisagrees with IARC\u2019s assessment of\n18 glyphosate.\u201d21 EPA noted that its cancer classification is \u201cconsistent with other international\n19 expert panels and regulatory authorities,\u201d including government regulators in Canada, Australia,\n20\n21\n 16\n22 Id.\n 17\n Id.\n23\n 18\n See EPA, Glyphosate: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration\n24 Review, Case No. 0178 (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-\n25 2009-0361-0068.\n 19\n See EPA, Glyphosate: Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, Case No. 0178, at\n26 7 (Apr. 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-2344.\n27 20\n Id.\n 21\n28 EPA, Letter to Glyphosate Registrants on California Proposition 65, at 1 (Aug. 7, 2019)\n (\u201cEPA Letter\u201d), https://tinyurl.com/53eb7685.\n 16\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 27\n PageID #: 453978\n\n\n\n 1 and New Zealand, as well as the European Food Safety Authority and European Chemicals\n 2 Agency.22 See Durnell, 609 U.S. at 381-82. EPA notified registrants that glyphosate-based\n 3 products that do bear a cancer warning would be \u201cmisbranded pursuant to\u201d FIFRA.23\n 4 In January 2020, following another comment period, EPA issued its interim registration\n 5 review decision, reaffirming its longstanding conclusion that glyphosate does not cause cancer in\n 6 humans.24 Even after that determination was vacated by the Ninth Circuit, see Nat. Res. Def.\n 7 Council v. EPA, 38 F.4th 34, 52 (9th Cir. 2022), EPA continues to approve labels without\n 8 requiring a cancer warning.25 Indeed, in subsequent proceedings, EPA has emphasized that its\n 9 \u201cscientific findings regarding glyphosate, including its longstanding finding that glyphosate is not\n10 likely to be carcinogenic to humans\u201d may still be used \u201cas support for a future decision.\u201d26 As\n11 the Supreme Court summarized: \u201cAll told, in accordance with EPA\u2019s view that glyphosate is not\n12 likely to cause cancer in humans, EPA has not required glyphosate-based pesticides like Roundup\n13 to include a cancer warning on their labels.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 381.\n14 ARGUMENT\n15 I. Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims are Preempted to the Extent They Rely on a Failure-to-Warn\n16 Legal Theory.\n17 After extensive review of this regulatory framework and EPA\u2019s application of it in\n18 approving glyphosate-based pesticide labels, the Supreme Court confirmed in Durnell that\n19 FIFRA\u2019s Uniformity provision preempts \u201cany state tort claim that would require a pesticide\n20\n21\n 22\n See also, e.g., European Food Safety Authority, Glyphosate: no critical areas of concern;\n22 data gaps identified (July 6, 2023) (European Chemicals Agency concluding that glyphosate \u201cdid\n not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic\n23\n substance\u201d), https://tinyurl.com/ywbkvdus; European Chemicals Agency, Glyphosate: no change\n24 proposed to hazard classification (May 30, 2022) (\u201cclassifying glyphosate as a carcinogen is not\n justified\u201d), https://tinyurl.com/yeywmrfz.\n25 23\n EPA Letter 1.\n26 24\n See EPA, Glyphosate: Interim Registration Review Decision, Case No. 0178, at 5 (Jan.\n27 2020), https://tinyurl.com/2s9ht99v.\n 25\n28 See Chemical Name: Glyphosate, EPA, https://perma.cc/N8KY-7KJ5.\n 26\n Supra, n.26.\n 17\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 27\n PageID #: 453979\n\n\n\n 1 manufacturer to use a label\u201d other than \u201cthe EPA-approved label[.]\u201d 609 U.S. at 390. The Court\n 2 thus held that FIFRA expressly preempted a Missouri state common law \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d claim.\n 3 This holding, however, broadly applies to \u201cany state court claim\u201d alleging that pesticide\n 4 manufacturers should have affixed customer warnings to pesticide product labeling \u201cthat would\n 5 impose labeling requirements \u2018in addition to\u2019 or \u2018different from\u2019 those required under FIFRA.\u201d\n 6 Id. at 386.\n 7 Plaintiffs cannot repackage their failure-to-warn theories as different torts and expect a\n 8 different result. It is the \u201cheart of\u201d the claim that matters, regardless of the tort theory espoused.\n 9 Id. at 383. The Supreme Court previously applied this principle to FIFRA\u2019s Uniformity provision\n10 in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). There, the Court held that FIFRA\n11 express preemption hinges on \u201can examination of the elements of the common-law duty at\n12 issue[,]\u201d and whether petitioners\u2019 various claims were \u201cpremised on common law rules that\n13 qualify as \u2018requirements for labeling or packaging.\u2019\u201d Id. at 445-447. Thus, for instance, the Court\n14 determined the state law fraud claims imposed requirements for pesticide labels, which \u201cmust\n15 also be measured against any relevant EPA regulations that give content to FIFRA\u2019s misbranding\n16 standards\u201d when determining whether or not a proposed requirement is \u201cin addition to or different\n17 from\u201d those required by EPA. Id. at 453. Conversely, the Court indicated that \u201cgenuine\u201d design\n18 defect claims\u2014wholly untethered from failure-to-warn allegations\u2014do not constitute a labeling\n19 \u201crequirement\u201d for purposes of \u00a7 136v(b). Id. at 445.27\n20 Courts must thus look to a claim\u2019s substance and not its form when applying FIFRA\u2019s\n21 Uniformity provision post-Durnell. Properly viewed in that light, the negligence, design defect\n22 and breach of warranty counts included in the Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints are little more than dressed-\n23 up failure-to-warn claims challenging the content of the EPA-approved labeling. See Monsanto\n24 Fla. Br. at 12-16, Dkt. 22524; Monsanto Oh. Br. at 7-8, Dkt. 22530; Monsanto N.C. Br. at 8-9,\n25 Dkt. 22529; Monsanto Ga. Br. at 9, Dkt. 22523; Monsanto Miss. Br. at 7-8, Dkt. 22525. If decided\n26 against Monsanto, these claims would require Monsanto to alter or amend EPA-approved\n27\n 27\n28 Bates did not, however, address failure-to-warn claims such as those asserted by Plaintiffs,\n disguised as design defect claims or related torts.\n 18\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 27\n PageID #: 453980\n\n\n\n 1 disclosures provided in FIFRA labeling to provide a cancer warning that EPA, after extensive\n 2 review of the science, has determined is unnecessary to protect human health. Because the claims\n 3 would interfere with EPA\u2019s expert labeling decisions, FIFRA expressly preempts each of these\n 4 claims. Further litigation based on theories, however named, that the Plaintiffs have not been\n 5 fairly warned of the cancer risks of glyphosate-based pesticides, would be futile.\n 6 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Negligence Claims Impose Labeling Requirements in Addition to\n 7 or Different From EPA\u2019s and Are Therefore Preempted.\n 8 Plaintiffs asserting negligence claims in a products liability action must demonstrate, at\n 9 minimum, a duty and breach of that duty under Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, or\n10 Georgia law. Marzullo v. Crosman Corp., 289 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1342 (M.D. Fla. 2003);\n11 Rheinfrank v. Abbott Lab\u2019ys, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 749, 761 (S.D. Ohio 2015), aff\u2019d, 680 F. App\u2019x\n12 369 (6th Cir. 2017); Durkee v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 742, 758\n13 (W.D.N.C. 2011); McSwain v. Sunrise Med., Inc., 689 F. Supp. 2d 835, 846 (S.D. Miss. 2010);\n14 Wheeler v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1353 (S.D. Ga. 2013).\n15 But as applied here, Plaintiffs\u2019 negligence claims rest principally on a breach of a duty to\n16 warn\u2014the very same duty at issue in Durnell cloaked under the umbrella of general \u201cnegligence.\u201d\n17 Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto breached its duty to include a cancer warning on Roundup\u00ae\u2019s label\n18 and/or packaging. See, e.g., Monsanto Ga. Br. at 9, Dkt. 22523 (claims allege that Monsanto is\n19 liable for \u201cfailing to adequately and correctly warn . . . of the dangers of Roundup\u201d and for\n20 \u201c[f]ailing to provide adequate cautions and warnings to protect the health of [Roundup] users.\u201d)\n21 A lay jury imposing this duty on manufacturers would directly undermine EPA\u2019s determination\n22 as to the adequacy of a pesticide product\u2019s labels and/or packaging in the same way that\n23 Missouri\u2019s duty-to-warn tort claim did in Durnell. For the same reason as explained by Durnell,\n24 Plaintiffs\u2019 negligence claims impose \u201crequirements\u201d that are different from or in addition to\n25 EPA\u2019s labeling requirements and are thus preempted by FIFRA\u2019s Uniformity provision. 7 U.S.C.\n26 \u00a7 136v(b).\n27 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims Impose Labeling Requirements in Addition\n28 to or Different From EPA\u2019s and Are Therefore Preempted.\n\n\n 19\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 27\n PageID #: 453981\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs\u2019 design defect claims similarly rest on their alleged lack of knowledge of\n 2 Roundup\u00ae\u2019s alleged dangerous characteristics. See, e.g., Monsanto Ga. Br. at 9, Dkt. 22523\n 3 (alleging Roundup\u00ae is \u201cdefective to an extent beyond that which an ordinary consumer would\n 4 anticipate, and Plaintiffs lacked \u201cknowledge of Roundup\u2019s dangerous characteristics\u201d). Such\n 5 claims are inextricably linked to the product\u2019s EPA-mandated labeling. To establish these claims,\n 6 Plaintiffs must either prove that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer\n 7 would expect pursuant to the consumer-expectations test, or, through a risk-utility analysis, that\n 8 a reasonable, feasible alternative design would have reduced or avoided the relevant risk. Aubin\n 9 v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 504, 511 (Fla. 2015); Zang v. Cones, 34 N.E.3d 955,\n10 961 (Ohio App. 2015); Sparks v. Oxy-Health LLC, 134 F. Supp. 3d 961, 987\u201388 (E.D.N.C. 2015);\n11 Banks v. ICI Ams., Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671, 673\u201375 & n.6 (Ga. 1994); Elliott v. El Paso Corp., 181\n12 So. 3d 263, 271\u201372 (Miss. 2015). Under either analysis, EPA\u2019s approval of Roundup\u00ae\u2019s labeling\n13 is fatal to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims.\n14 Because consumer expectations regarding a scientifically complex product are informed\n15 by its warnings, a consumer cannot expect that product to perform more safely than government-\n16 mandated warnings indicate. Papike v. Tambrands Inc., 107 F.3d 737, 743 (9th Cir. 1997).\n17 Liability based on consumer expectations that vary from what is plainly provided in the EPA label\n18 (here, no cancer warning) would require a manufacturer to amend the label to provide a warning\n19 that EPA has not required. Such liability would frustrate the uniformity explicitly protected and\n20 promoted by FIFRA. See, e.g., Oken v. Monsanto Co., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla.2002)\n21 (consumer expectations test necessarily involves consideration of warnings given to the public,\n22 and thus, a design defect claim on this theory is preempted by FIFRA).\n23 Similarly, the risk-utility test contemplates that the jury will consider the adequacy of a\n24 product's warnings in weighing the risks of a product against the product's benefits. This\n25 consideration of a pesticide product's warnings under state law is precisely what is prohibited by\n26 FIFRA. The risk-utility analysis considers feasibility, the availability of a safer effective\n27 substitute, cost, and the alternative\u2019s adverse effects. But when \u201cunreasonable danger\u201d rests on\n28 consumers\u2019 lack of knowledge of an alleged cancer risk, the theory necessarily seeks a warning\n\n\n 20\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 27\n PageID #: 453982\n\n\n\n 1 different from the EPA-approved label. Feasible alternatives must, to a reasonable probability,\n 2 have prevented the harm without impairing the product\u2019s utility, usefulness, practicality, or\n 3 desirability. When plaintiffs instead allege that Roundup\u00ae \u201cas labeled\u201d was more dangerous than\n 4 ordinary consumers would contemplate, the alleged product defect is the missing cancer warning.\n 5 In all relevant states, Plaintiffs\u2019 design defect claims would impose inconsistent or\n 6 additional labeling requirements in violation of FIFRA\u2019s Uniformity provision when, as here,\n 7 their underlying theory rests on inadequate pesticide safety warnings. FIFRA expressly preempts\n 8 such claims.\n 9 C. Plaintiffs\u2019 Warranty Claims Impose Labeling Requirements In Addition to\n10 or Different From EPA\u2019s and are Therefore Preempted.\n11 Plaintiffs\u2019 warranty claims are also tethered to Monsanto\u2019s mandatory Roundup\u00ae labeling.\n12 Express warranty claims based on EPA-required label statements are preempted because they\n13 would impose liability for federally mandated labeling, while implied warranty claims are\n14 preempted to the extent they require a warning or other risk statements different from the EPA-\n15 approved labeling.\n16 \u201cBreach of express warranty claims are preempted to the extent they are based upon\n17 inadequacies in labeling or packaging.\u201d Jarman v. United Indus. Corp., 98 F. Supp. 2d 757, 765\n18 (S.D. Miss. 2000) (applying Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F. 2d 516 (11th Cir. 1993)). Such claims\n19 arising from voluntary statements generally are not. Id. But EPA requires pesticide registrants to\n20 use the precise label approved in EPA\u2019s review process\u2014statements contained therein are not\n21 \u201cvoluntarily undertaken.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 378 (\u201cafter EPA has registered the pesticide and\n22 approved the label, the manufacturer is required to use that label\u201d).\n23 Implied warranties arise by operation of state law and impose an agreement to be held\n24 responsible for a product that is not fit for the use and purposes intended. Papas v. Upjohn Co.,\n25 985 F.2d 516, 519-520 (11th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto failed to disclose a\n26 risk of cancer associated with Roundup\u00ae use. See, e.g., Monsanto Ga. Br. at 9, Dkt. 22523. This\n27 claim implies that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user and necessarily questions\n28 the adequacy of Roundup\u00ae\u2019s label. Papas, 985 F.2d at 520 (\u201cto the extent the implied warranty\n\n\n 21\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 27\n PageID #: 453983\n\n\n\n 1 claim depends upon inadequacies in labelling or packaging, FIFRA section 136v preempts the\n 2 claim\u201d).\n 3 Plaintiffs\u2019 warranty claims would impose labeling requirements that are inconsistent with\n 4 the EPA-approved Roundup label, and they are therefore preempted. See also, Lowe v. Sporicidin\n 5 Int'l, 47 F.3d 124, 130 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying Papas, 985 F.2d 516); Jenkins v. James B. Day\n 6 & Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 541 (1994) (acknowledging the holding in Papas).\n 7 II. Durnell Applies to All FIFRA \u201cLabeling,\u201d Not Merely the Container \u201cLabel.\u201d\n 8 Post-Durnell, the MDL Plaintiffs have attempted to shift the focus of their claims from\n 9 the Roundup\u00ae label to off-label statements such as advertisements \u201cconvey[ing] the false and\n10 misleading message that Roundup was perfectly safe for use without any protective clothing or\n11 concern about dermal exposure.\u201d Pl.\u2019s Opposition at 13, Dkt. 22682. However, FIFRA\n12 preemption applies with equal force to certain materials accompanying the pesticide\u2014not just the\n13 label itself.\n14 FIFRA explains that pesticide\u2019s \u201clabel\u201d is simply one form of the broader category of\n15 \u201clabeling\u201d covered by the Uniformity provision. A pesticide \u201clabel\u201d is \u201cthe written, printed, or\n16 graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide or device or any of its containers or wrappers.\u201d 7\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(p)(1). But a pesticide\u2019s \u201clabeling\u201d is broader and encompasses not only \u201call labels\u201d\n18 but also all other written, printed, or graphic matter that accompanies the pesticide \u201cat any time,\u201d\n19 as well as matter referenced on the label or in literature accompanying the pesticide, subject to\n20 specified exceptions for certain official publications. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136(p)(2). Thus, labeling extends\n21 well beyond the words printed on or attached to the container.\n22 Pesticide labeling is central to EPA\u2019s registration and registration-review processes. For\n23 example, when a pesticide label refers to a procedural manual, that manual also constitutes\n24 \u201clabeling\u201d that EPA must approve and that users must follow. EPA reviews pesticide labeling to\n25 ensure that required health and safety warnings are adequate and that the labeling contains no\n26 false or misleading statement concerning the pesticide or its ingredients. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n27 136(q)(1)(A), (G). Plaintiffs\u2019 negligence, warranty, and design defect theories are therefore\n28 preempted to the extent they seek to impose requirements to communicate a cancer warning\n\n\n 22\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 27\n PageID #: 453984\n\n\n\n 1 through written, printed, or graphic matter qualifying as FIFRA labeling. See, e.g., Monsanto Ga.\n 2 Br. at 9, Dkt. 22523 (\u201cPlaintiff Moreland \u2026 contends he may still advance a claim for \u2018failure to\n 3 warn (excluding label.\u201d). Durnell, 609 U.S. at 389 (\u201cFIFRA expressly directs EPA to register\n 4 pesticides and \u2018determin[e]\u2019 that the pesticide\u2019s \u2018labeling\u2019 complies with FIFRA\u2019s many specific\n 5 requirements.\u201d).\n 6 Plaintiffs likewise cannot evade FIFRA preemption by recasting their failure-to-warn\n 7 theory as deceptive advertising claims. A state law duty to provide a cancer warning in pesticide\n 8 advertising conflicts with FIFRA when it differs substantially from claims EPA-approved in the\n 9 product\u2019s registration and is made as part of the product\u2019s distribution or sale (including offers\n10 for sale). 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136j(a)(1)(B); 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 168.22. Even where such advertising material is\n11 not technically \u201clabeling,\u201d FIFRA still preempts claims that would require such advertising to\n12 conflict with EPA\u2019s label approval. FIFRA explicitly prohibits the distribution and sale of \u201cany\n13 registered pesticide if any claims made for it as a part of its distribution or sale substantially differ\n14 from any claims made for it as a part of the statement required in connection with its registration.\u201d\n15 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136j(a)(1)(B). Here, requiring a cancer warning in pesticide advertising would\n16 substantially differ from the claims that EPA- approved in connection with Roundup\u00ae\u2019s\n17 registration.\n18 State law cannot require what Section 136j(a)(1)(B) explicitly prohibits. See, e.g., Mut.\n19 Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472, 480 (2013) (implied preemption where it is \u201cimpossible\u201d\n20 for defendant simultaneously \u201cto comply with both state and federal requirements\u201d); Papas v.\n21 Upjohn Co., 985 F. 2d 516 (11th Cir. 1993) (\u201cBecause claims challenging the adequacy of\n22 warnings on materials other than the label or package of a product necessarily imply that the\n23 labeling and packaging failed to warn the user, we conclude that these claims are also pre-empted\n24 by FIFRA.\u201d) Thus, for instance, EPA has concluded that glyphosate-based products bearing the\n25 California Proposition 65 cancer warning would be misbranded pursuant to FIFRA.28\n26\n27\n28\n 28\n See EPA Letter, supra, n. 23.\n 23\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 27\n PageID #: 453985\n\n\n\n 1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot simply pivot to labeling or sale-related advertising as\n 2 alternative vehicles for FIFRA\u2019s regulatory framework.\n 3 III. To the Extent Plaintiffs Assert \u201cGenuine\u201d Design Defect Claims, They are\n 4 Impliedly Preempted.\n 5 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims are Preempted Because They Would\n 6 Effectively Require Manufacturers to Withdraw from the Pesticide Market.\n 7 As already noted, the Supremacy Clause preempts state law where \u201ccompliance with both\n 8 federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility[.]\u201d Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy\n 9 Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm\u2019n, 461 U.S. 190, 204 (1983) (quoting Florida Lime & Avocado\n10 Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963)). Plaintiffs\u2019 design defect claims seek to\n11 impose a duty on Monsanto to unilaterally change the formulation for Roundup\u00ae. But this is not\n12 permitted under FIFRA. For reasons similar to that applied to duty-to-warn claims in Durnell,\n13 such design defect claims are preempted. Bartlett, 570 U.S. at 475-476 (2013). They would\n14 effectively require manufacturers to pull their products from the market for complying with\n15 EPA\u2019s product formulation.\n16 Pesticide products require EPA approval, which requires EPA to assess and approve not\n17 only the product label but also its composition. The very same regulation that Durnell read to\n18 mean that \u201cfederal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup\u00ae with the label that EPA-approved[,]\u201d\n19 and without modification absent EPA approval, also requires EPA approval to change the\n20 pesticide\u2019s composition. See Durnell, 609 U.S. at 385; 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 152.44 (\u201c[A]ny modification\n21 in the composition, labeling, or packaging of a registered product must be submitted with an\n22 application for amended registration.\u201d) (emphasis added). Durnell itself makes it clear that\n23 pesticide registrants cannot unilaterally alter their pesticide products\u2019 formula without EPA\n24 approval. See id. at 378 n.1 (\u201cFIFRA prohibits selling a pesticide if its \u2018composition\u2019 differs from\n25 the composition described at registration.\u201d) (quoting 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136j(a)(1)(C)). Thus, under\n26 Durnell, just as federal law \u201crequire[s] a manufacturer to use the EPA-approved label and\n27 prohibit[s] the manufacturer from unilaterally changing the label,\u201d id. at 391, federal law requires\n28 Monsanto to use the EPA-approved formulation and prohibits Monsanto from unilaterally\n\n\n 24\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 27\n PageID #: 453986\n\n\n\n 1 changing the formulation. The effect is the same\u2014state law claims that would require a change\n 2 to that EPA-approved formulation without EPA approval are preempted.\n 3 EPA\u2019s risk determinations for glyphosate-based products thus preempt state-tort liability\n 4 based on allegations that such products were or are \u201cunreasonably dangerous.\u201d This assertion\u2019s\n 5 corollary\u2014that Monsanto must simply stop selling these products\u2014is equally flawed and\n 6 \u201cincompatible with\u201d federal preemption jurisprudence, which recognizes that a company \u201cis not\n 7 required to cease acting altogether in order to avoid liability.\u201d Bartlett, 570 U.S. at 488.\n 8 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Design Defect Claims are Impliedly Preempted Because They\n 9 Disrupt the Regulatory Scheme for Pesticides Envisioned by Congress.\n10 In Durnell, the Court recognized the pervasiveness of EPA\u2019s regulation of pesticide\n11 products pursuant to FIFRA. Plaintiffs\u2019 threadbare design defect allegations targeting\n12 Roundup\u00ae\u2019s formulation, as opposed to its labeling, are inconsistent with the structure and\n13 purpose of this framework and, therefore, are impliedly preempted. A state law claim is impliedly\n14 preempted where it \u201cstands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full\n15 purposes and objectives of Congress.\u201d Crosby v. Nat\u2019l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373\n16 (2000). Although the focus of Durnell was express preemption, the Court\u2019s discussion of FIFRA\n17 and the logic of its opinion also compels the conclusion that Plaintiffs\u2019 design defect claims are\n18 an \u201cobstacle\u201d to Congress\u2019s purposes in enacting FIFRA and delegating exclusive authority over\n19 pesticide registration to the EPA.\n20 The Supreme Court in Durnell recognized that Congress created a \u201ccarefully calibrated\n21 and EPA-centric regulatory scheme\u201d when it enacted FIFRA and acknowledged EPA\u2019s broad\n22 authority \u201cto monitor a pesticide\u2019s continued safety and order appropriate changes such as a new\n23 label[.]\u201d 609 U.S. at 380. See also, id. at 386 (\u201c[W]hen it comes to safety claims, EPA\u2019s\n24 registration determinations do reflect EPA\u2019s considered judgment that a pesticide\u2019s label is not\n25 false or misleading and contains all necessary warnings.\u201d) The Court commented that state tort\n26 law claims attacking EPA-approved labels improperly \u201cupend FIFRA\u2019s carefully calibrated and\n27 EPA-centric regulatory scheme[,]\u201d which grants the EPA powers to police pesticide safety, such\n28 as removing a product from the market through \u201cregistration cancellation ... proceedings[,]\u201d the\n\n\n 25\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 27\n PageID #: 453987\n\n\n\n 1 right to seek \u201ccivil or criminal penalties if a manufacturer fail[s] to inform EPA of important new\n 2 safety-related information[,]\u201d and other carefully crafted statutory remedies. Id. at 391.\n 3 State tort law claims seeking to modify a registered pesticide\u2019s formulation undermines\n 4 EPA\u2019s determination that the pesticide does not cause cancer or otherwise pose unreasonable risks\n 5 to man or the environment. The Supreme Court has held that when a federal agency has approved\n 6 a product\u2019s design as safe when used according to label instructions, as is the case here, design\n 7 defect claims are impliedly preempted. See Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000)\n 8 (federal regulation which permitted, but did not require, airbags to be installed in passenger\n 9 vehicles preempted claims that a car was defective because it lacked an airbag). While the\n10 Supreme Court has begun to back away from finding implied obstacle preemption, this doctrine\n11 still applies where a \u201csignificant objective\u201d of the regulatory scheme is frustrated. Williamson v.\n12 Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 562 U.S. 323, 326 (2011). Post-Durnell, \u201cEPA\u2019s comprehensive and\n13 exclusive authority in registering pesticides and approving labels\u201d is abundantly clear, and cannot\n14 be derailed.\n15 Any claims targeting the composition of glyphosate-based products are at direct odds with\n16 EPA\u2019s decision to grant Monsanto a registration for Roundup\u00ae. Those claims also undermine\n17 FIFRA\u2019s specified enforcement mechanisms and avenues for removing pesticides from the\n18 market.29 Plaintiffs purported design defect claims would foreclose what the EPA has authorized,\n19 and they are therefore preempted by FIFRA.\n20 CONCLUSION\n21 For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs\u2019 disguised and repackaged state law claims are\n22 preempted for the same reason the failure-to-warn claims were preempted in Durnell and because\n23\n24\n25\n26 29\n FIFRA provides for an administrative proceeding involving a cancellation hearing where\n27 the proponent can present its case for cancellations. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136d(b). Alternatively,\n FIFRA also allows state legislation to \u201cregulate the sale or use of any federally registered\n28 pesticide,\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(a), including by prospectively \u201cban[ning]a pesticide within its\n borders[.]\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 380, n.2.\n 26\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22751-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 27\n PageID #: 453988\n\n\n\n 1 those claims would also be preempted under conflict and obstacle preemption. Summary\n 2 judgment should be granted on those state law claims to Monsanto.\n 3\n 4 Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 5 By: s/ Melanie Ayerh\n 6\n Melanie Ayerh, Esq.\n 7\n Counsel for Amicus Curiae CropLife America\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n 27\n BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CROPLIFE AMERICA\n CASE NO. 3:16-MDL-02741-VC\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-02T04:09:37.355751-08:00","document_number":"22751","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027871773","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499767173/","id":499767173,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22751/2/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T04:05:16.800846-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T04:05:16.800865-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":162935,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22751","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027871774","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T17:36:23.152998-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.611877-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"17:00:13","entry_number":22751,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.006","pacer_sequence_number":89921,"description":"MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief filed by CropLife America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ayerh, Melanie) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483748580/","id":483748580,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499570757/","id":499570757,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22750/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T14:37:09.607293-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.747353-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22750","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027869599","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T14:37:09.566774-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.589937-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"14:11:35","entry_number":22750,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.005","pacer_sequence_number":89918,"description":"First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by American Association for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amici Curiae Brief)(Peck, Robert) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483722636/","id":483722636,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499544413/","id":499544413,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22749/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T13:06:46.934356-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T14:30:00.165109-08:00","sha1":"9527e5dba66146fefadca58b30c07ba4438cf365","page_count":10,"file_size":213951,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.22749.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.22749.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID\n #: 453912\n\n\n 1 MATTHEW V.H. NOLLER (Bar No. 325180)\n mnoller@kslaw.com\n 2 KING & SPALDING LLP\n 50 California St., Suite 3300\n 3 San Francisco, CA 94111\n (415) 318-1200\n 4\n JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 5 jbucholtz@kslaw.com\n KING & SPALDING LLP\n 6 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n 7 (202) 737-0500\n 8\n\n 9 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae\n 10\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 11\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 12\n SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n 13\n\n 14\n IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC\n 15 LITIGATION\n BRIEF OF THE CHAMBER OF\n 16 This document relates to: COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES\n OF AMERICA AND THE WASHINGTON\n 17 ALL CASES LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI\n CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID\n #: 453913\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................................................... 1\n 3 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1\n I. FIFRA preemption turns on the substance of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims, not their labels. ......... 2\n 4\n II. Allowing Plaintiffs to avoid preemption through artful pleading would have harmful\n 5 consequences. ................................................................................................................. 5\n 6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 8\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n 10\n\n 11\n\n 12\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n\n i\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID\n #: 453914\n\n\n 1 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE1\n 2 The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (\u201cChamber\u201d) is the world\u2019s\n 3 largest business organization. As the nation\u2019s leading advocate for business, the Chamber\n 4 represents companies and professional organizations of every size, in every industry sector, and\n 5 from every region of the country. An important function of the Chamber is to represent the interests\n 6 of its members in matters before Congress, the Executive Branch, and the courts. To that end, the\n 7 Chamber regularly files amicus curiae briefs in cases, like this one, that raise issues of concern to\n 8 the nation\u2019s business community.\n 9 The Washington Legal Foundation (\u201cWLF\u201d) is a non-profit, public-interest law firm and\n 10 policy center with supporters nationwide. WLF promotes free enterprise, individual rights, limited\n 11 government, and the rule of law. It often appears as amicus curiae in important federal preemption\n 12 cases, urging courts to ensure that federal law operates efficiently and uniformly\u2014as Congress\n 13 intended. WLF believes that conflicting federal and state-law duties are not merely inefficient; they\n 14 are also unfair, making it impossible for regulated parties to comply with both state and federal law\n 15 without incurring enormous liability.\n 16 As the Court\u2019s order inviting amicus briefs suggests, this is an important case raising many\n 17 issues of concern to amici and their members and supporters. In particular, this case presents a clear\n 18 example of the troubling phenomenon of plaintiffs using artful pleading to try to avoid federal\n 19 preemption. Preemption protects national uniformity in important markets and shields defendants\n 20 from burdensome and improper litigation of state-law claims in circumstances where federal law\n 21 controls. But, as here, plaintiffs often use pleading labels to avoid preemption defenses in an attempt\n 22 to force burdensome and expensive litigation and thereby obtain a settlement. Amici and their\n 23 members and supporters have a substantial interest in courts policing the pleading tactics at play in\n 24 this case.\n 25 ARGUMENT\n 26 In Monsanto Company v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026), the Supreme Court held that the\n 27 1\n No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no entity or person, aside\n 28 from amici curiae, their members, or their counsel, made any monetary contribution intended to\n fund the preparation or submission of this brief.\n\n 1\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID\n #: 453915\n\n\n 1 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (\u201cFIFRA\u201d) expressly preempts state-law\n 2 claims that Monsanto failed to warn of alleged cancer risks associated with its pesticide Roundup.\n 3 Throughout this case, Plaintiffs have sought to pursue precisely such failure-to-warn claims against\n 4 Monsanto. After Durnell, there can be no serious dispute that FIFRA preempts those claims. To\n 5 avoid that result, however, Plaintiffs now argue that they are not alleging failure to warn after all.\n 6 Plaintiffs contend (for example) that Monsanto falsely advertised Roundup by failing to disclose\n 7 its cancer risks or that Monsanto defectively designed Roundup. And Plaintiffs argue that these\n 8 theories survive FIFRA preemption simply because Plaintiffs have rephrased them in a way that\n 9 does not expressly mention Roundup\u2019s label.\n 10 This Court should reject Plaintiffs\u2019 attempt to \u201celevate form over substance\u201d in this way.\n 11 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 214 (2004) (quotation marks omitted). Preemption turns\n 12 on the substance of a plaintiff\u2019s claims, not on \u201cthe particular label affixed to them.\u201d Id. Under\n 13 Durnell, therefore, FIFRA preempts any claim that would have the effect of requiring a\n 14 manufacturer to give a warning that does not appear on a pesticide\u2019s EPA-approved label. 609 U.S.\n 15 at 390. As Monsanto explains, that is what Plaintiffs\u2019 claims would require. FIFRA thus preempts\n 16 those claims\u2014no matter what Plaintiffs tactically choose to call them.\n 17 Allowing such claims to survive would cause multiple undesirable outcomes. First, it would\n 18 destroy the nationwide uniformity that Congress enacted FIFRA\u2019s preemption provision to protect\n 19 by allowing individual lay juries to override the EPA\u2019s expert assessments as to the safety of\n 20 pesticides sold under an EPA-approved label. Second, it would jeopardize near-identical\n 21 preemption provisions in a variety of other statutes, leading to a confusing morass of different\n 22 warnings across several industries in which Congress has tried to ensure nationwide uniformity.\n 23 Third, it would expose businesses to significantly greater litigation costs, reducing the number of\n 24 important products available to consumers and increasing the prices of products that remain on the\n 25 market. The Court should avoid these harms by enforcing FIFRA\u2019s preemption provision against\n 26 Plaintiffs\u2019 claims.\n 27 I. FIFRA preemption turns on the substance of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims, not their labels.\n 28 FIFRA expressly preempts any state law that \u201cimpose[s] or continue[s] in effect any\n\n 2\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID\n #: 453916\n\n\n 1 requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under\u201d\n 2 FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(b). Whether that provision applies to a tort claim thus depends on whether\n 3 it relies on an alleged state-law \u201crequirement[] for labeling or packaging\u201d that is \u201cin addition to or\n 4 different from\u201d requirements imposed by FIFRA and its implementing regulations. Durnell, 609\n 5 U.S. at 387-88 (quotation marks omitted). If so, FIFRA expressly preempts the claim. Id.; Taylor\n 6 AG Indus. v. Pure-Go, 54 F.3d 555, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1995).2\n 7 This analysis turns on the substance, not the label, of a plaintiff\u2019s claim. To be sure, an\n 8 acknowledged failure-to-warn claim based on a pesticide\u2019s label falls within section 136v(b)\u2019s\n 9 preemptive scope. But that does not mean, as Plaintiffs argue, that FIFRA preemption is limited to\n 10 claims that plaintiffs choose to describe as \u201clabel-based failure-to-warn\u201d claims. Dkt. No. 22682-1\n 11 at 1. To the contrary, the Supreme Court held in Durnell that FIFRA preempts \u201cany state tort claim\n 12 that would require a pesticide manufacturer to use a label\u201d other than \u201cthe EPA-approved label.\u201d\n 13 609 U.S. at 390 (emphasis added); see also Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 452\n 14 (2005) (\u201cThe provision also pre-empts any statutory or common-law rule that would impose a\n 15 labeling requirement that diverges from those set out in FIFRA and its implementing regulations.\u201d\n 16 (emphasis added)). So, no matter what a plaintiff chooses to call its claim\u2014false advertising, design\n 17 defect, negligence, implied warranty, or anything else\u2014FIFRA preempts the claim if, in substance,\n 18 it would require a pesticide manufacturer to provide a warning that does not appear on the EPA-\n 19 approved label. In Bates, for instance, the Court held that section 136v(b) could preempt not only\n 20 the plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cnegligent failure-to-warn claims,\u201d but also fraud claims that were not expressly\n 21 designated as failure-to-warn claims, because those fraud claims still sought to enforce \u201ca standard\n 22 for a product\u2019s labeling that the [defendant\u2019s] label [was] alleged to have violated by containing\n 23 false statements and inadequate warnings.\u201d 544 U.S. at 446; see also id. at 456 (Thomas, J.,\n 24 concurring in part) (\u201cA state-law cause of action, even if not specific to labeling, nevertheless\n 25\n 2\n As Monsanto argues, FIFRA also impliedly preempts claims that conflict with FIFRA and its\n 26 implementing regulations, even if not related to labeling. E.g., Dkt. No. 22735 at 8-12. For\n 27 example, FIFRA \u201cprohibits selling a pesticide if its \u2018composition\u2019 differs from the composition\n described at registration.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 378 n.1 (quoting 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136j(a)(1)(C)). That\n 28 prohibition preempts any claim that would require Monsanto to change Roundup\u2019s composition in\n a manner not permitted by FIFRA. See Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472, 486 (2013).\n 3\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID\n #: 453917\n\n\n 1 imposes a labeling requirement \u2018in addition to or different from\u2019 FIFRA\u2019s when it attaches liability\n 2 to statements on the label that do not produce liability under FIFRA.\u201d).3\n 3 Outside the FIFRA context, the Supreme Court repeatedly has refused to \u201cdistinguish[]\n 4 between pre-empted and non-pre-empted claims based on the particular label affixed to them,\u201d\n 5 which would improperly \u201celevate form over substance.\u201d Davila, 542 U.S. at 214 (cleaned up); cf.\n 6 Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 324 (1981) (\u201c[C]ompliance with\n 7 the intent of Congress cannot be avoided by mere artful pleading.\u201d). The federal courts of appeals\n 8 thus have rejected attempts, like Plaintiffs\u2019 here, to avoid preemption by relabeling what are in\n 9 essence failure-to-warn claims. See, e.g., Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 737 F.3d 378, 394-98\n 10 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted warranty, fraud, and\n 11 design-defect claims that were \u201cessentially failure to warn claims\u201d); Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d\n 12 516, 519 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that FIFRA preempted \u201cclaims challenging the adequacy of\n 13 warnings on materials other than the label or package of a product,\u201d which \u201cnecessarily imply that\n 14 the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user\u201d).\n 15 This Court should take the same approach. Whatever state-law causes of action Plaintiffs\n 16 invoke, Plaintiffs may not enforce any \u201crequirement[] for labeling or packaging\u201d that is \u201cin addition\n 17 to or different from\u201d FIFRA\u2019s requirements. 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(b). As Monsanto explains, that is\n 18 what Plaintiffs are seeking to do. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 22735. For example, Plaintiffs contend that\n 19 Monsanto should have included cancer warnings in its advertisements, but such an advertising-\n 20 based claim is preempted because it \u201cnecessarily challenge[s] the adequacy of the warnings\n 21 provided on the product\u2019s labeling or packaging.\u201d Taylor, 54 F.3d at 561 (quotation marks omitted)\n 22 (quoting Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516, 519 (11th Cir. 1993)); see also Yousefzadeh v.\n 23 Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., 184 F.4th 130, 150-51 & n.6 (2d Cir. 2026) (holding 21 U.S.C.\n 24 \u00a7 379r(a)(2)\u2019s equivalent preemption provision for non-prescription drugs preempted claim based\n 25 on \u201cmarketing and advertising,\u201d and citing cases holding the same under FIFRA). FIFRA thus\n 26 preempts Plaintiffs\u2019 advertising-based claim, as well as any other claim that is substantively a\n 27 3\n The Court remanded for the district court to decide in the first instance whether the plaintiffs\u2019\n 28 claims sought to enforce requirements that \u201cdiverge[d] from those set out in FIFRA and its\n implementing regulations.\u201d Id. at 452-53.\n 4\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID\n #: 453918\n\n\n 1 failure-to-warn claim, no matter what Plaintiffs label those claims.\n 2 II. Allowing Plaintiffs to avoid preemption through artful pleading would have harmful\n consequences.\n 3\n If approved, Plaintiffs\u2019 attempt to avoid FIFRA preemption by relabeling their claims\n 4\n \u201cwould nullify FIFRA\u2019s preemption clause.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 388. It is hard to imagine a\n 5\n failure-to-warn claim that any clever lawyer could not redescribe as, for example, a false-\n 6\n advertising or design-defect claim: Instead of openly characterizing the allegedly tortious conduct\n 7\n as a failure to warn, a plaintiff\u2019s lawyer easily could allege that an advertisement was \u201cfalse\u201d\n 8\n because it did not include a given warning or that the product was defectively designed because it\n 9\n posed an alleged risk that the company did not warn about. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod.\n 10\n Liab. \u00a7 2 (1998) (explaining that \u201cinadequate instructions or warnings\u201d are a category of \u201c[p]roduct\n 11\n [d]efect\u201d); W. Page Keeton, Products Liability-Inadequacy of Information, 48 Tex. L. Rev. 398,\n 12\n 403 (1970) (\u201c[T]he question whether a product was properly designed is inseparable from the\n 13\n question whether adequate instructions are provided to [e]nsure safe usage.\u201d). Allowing section\n 14\n 136v(b) to be so easily evaded would \u201cexpose manufacturers to potentially massive tort liability\n 15\n for doing what EPA required them to do and eviscerate the uniformity of EPA\u2019s labeling\n 16\n determinations.\u201d Id. at 392 (cleaned up).\n 17\n That result, which is forbidden by FIFRA, would threaten nationwide markets and the\n 18\n agricultural industry more broadly. FIFRA allows the best-equipped decisionmakers\u2014the EPA in\n 19\n consultation with the Department of Agriculture\u2014to make a single nationwide judgment as to\n 20\n whether a pesticide is safe and accompanied by appropriate warnings. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims would\n 21\n instead transfer that power to local juries who lack the same economic and scientific resources,\n 22\n undermining Congress\u2019s careful regulatory scheme. Congress recognized that removing pesticides\n 23\n from the market can have major effects on the availability of important crops and food prices.\n 24\n Congress therefore included layers of protections in the pesticide cancellation process to prevent\n 25\n economic disruption. See 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136d (requiring, among other things, consideration of\n 26\n economic effects of cancellation, evidentiary hearings upon request, and judicial review of\n 27\n cancellation decision). Plaintiffs here seek the same practical outcome as cancellation\u2014removing\n 28\n\n 5\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID\n #: 453919\n\n\n 1 Roundup from shelves\u2014without any of the same protections. Indeed, Plaintiffs\u2019 claims would\n 2 allow a jury in a single jurisdiction to second-guess whether a pesticide can remain on shelves, no\n 3 matter its importance to the broader agricultural industry, food prices, and the national economy.\n 4 These consequences would not be limited to pesticides and agriculture. As the Supreme\n 5 Court recognized in Durnell, allowing claims like Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cto overcome preemption would affect\n 6 more than FIFRA\u201d because numerous other \u201cfederal statutes across a range of industries contain\n 7 similar or identical labeling preemption provisions.\u201d 609 U.S. at 387.4 For example, the Medical\n 8 Device Amendments bar states from \u201cestablish[ing] or continu[ing] in effect \u2026 any requirement\n 9 \u2026 which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement\u201d under that law. 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 360k(a).\n 10 Similarly, the Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibits states from imposing any \u201c[m]arking, labeling,\n 11 packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under this [Act].\u201d\n 12 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 678 (emphasis added). Other examples abound. See, e.g., id. \u00a7 1052(b) (egg labeling);\n 13 id. \u00a7 467e (labeling poultry and poultry products); id. \u00a7 379s(a) (cosmetic labeling); id. \u00a7 379r(a)(2)\n 14 (non-prescription drug labeling); id. \u00a7 387p(a)(2)(A) (tobacco product labeling); id. \u00a7 343-1(a)(2)-\n 15 (4) (food labeling). If this Court were to hold that FIFRA\u2019s preemption provision could be avoided\n 16 merely by relabeling a failure-to-warn claim, then other courts could be led to transplant the same\n 17 misguided reasoning into all these other provisions, disrupting \u201cthe uniformity that Congress\n 18 sought.\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 388.\n 19 That, in turn, would \u201cwork against our national marketplace, confuse consumers, raise\n 20 prices, undermine public confidence in our regulatory system and in products important to the\n 21 public health, and result in divergent public health protection throughout the country.\u201d FDA\n 22 Modernization and Accountability Act, S. Rep. No. 105-43, at 64 (1997). In the context of non-\n 23 prescription drugs, for example, FDA has sought to ensure that warning labels are clear and\n 24 readable and contain \u201cthe least amount of information possible to assure proper self-selection and\n 25 use.\u201d FDA, Over-the-Counter Human Drugs; Labeling Requirements, 64 Fed. Reg. 13,254, 13,269\n 26 4\n In addition, other federal statutes use the same preemption language for state requirements outside\n 27 the labeling context. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 379aa(h) (serious adverse event reports for non-\n prescription drugs); id. \u00a7 379aa-1(h) (serious adverse event reports for dietary supplements); 7\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 4817(b) (promotion and consumer education regarding pork); 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78o(i)\n (regulation of brokers and dealers).\n 6\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID\n #: 453920\n\n\n 1 (Mar. 17, 1999). Jumbled warnings that change from brand to brand and state to state would\n 2 undermine that goal. Moreover, if labels were overloaded with disclaimers to avoid potential\n 3 litigation, consumers may discount all the warnings as equally unimportant. FDA has long sought\n 4 to prevent such \u201coverwarning\u201d by designing labels \u201cso that less important information does not\n 5 overshadow more important information.\u201d Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 587 U.S. 299,\n 6 304 (2019) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting FDA, Supplemental Applications Proposing\n 7 Labeling Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices, 73 Fed. Reg. 49,603,\n 8 49,605-49,606 (Aug. 22, 2008)). FDA further seeks to ensure that labels \u201cexclude exaggeration of\n 9 risk, or inclusion of speculative or hypothetical risks, that could discourage appropriate use of a\n 10 beneficial drug.\u201d Id. (cleaned up) (quoting FDA, Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling\n 11 Changes for Approved Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices, 73 Fed. Reg. 2848, 2851 (Jan. 16,\n 12 2008)). Preemption could not protect any of these important goals if plaintiffs could avoid preemption\n 13 through the mere contrivance of labeling their claims something other than \u201cfailure to warn.\u201d\n 14 Allowing idiosyncratic labeling requirements under state law would also increase\n 15 regulatory compliance and litigation costs. Businesses already are subject to comprehensive\n 16 regulatory schemes under both federal and state law, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars\n 17 annually. See, e.g., U.S. Chamber of Commerce Found., The Regulatory Impact on Small Business:\n 18 Complex. Cumbersome. Costly. at 4 (Mar. 2017), https://perma.cc/6DVW-8MY3; Nicole V. Crain\n 19 & W. Mark Crain, Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Mfrs., The Cost of Federal Regulation to the U.S. Economy,\n 20 Manufacturing & Small Business at 4-5 (Oct. 2023), https://perma.cc/88NS-KNAT. Allowing each\n 21 of the 50 states to adopt its own unique rulebook for labels and warnings across a variety of\n 22 industries would compound those existing burdens by subjecting businesses to a thicket of different\n 23 state requirements. As the Supreme Court has recognized, allowing \u201c50 different labeling regimes\n 24 prescribing the color, font size, and wording of warnings \u2026 would create significant inefficiencies\n 25 for manufacturers\u201d and deprive them of the \u201cuniformity\u201d they \u201cneed\u201d to operate. Bates, 544 U.S.\n 26 at 452 & n.26. The flood of different (and perhaps conflicting) warnings would also \u201cdriv[e]\n 27 consumers who buy \u2026 products in more than one state crazy.\u201d Turek v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 662 F.3d\n 28 423, 426 (7th Cir. 2011).\n\n 7\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\fCase 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22749 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID\n #: 453921\n\n\n 1 Opening the door to state-law litigation over requirements that Congress and federal\n 2 agencies chose not to impose would also force manufacturers and retailers to engage in costly legal\n 3 battles to defend against state-specific claims that may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This\n 4 is no small risk. The U.S. tort system\u2019s commercial liability costs totaled $367 billion in 2022, an\n 5 increase of 13.3 percent over the year before. See U.S. Chamber of Com. Inst. for Legal Reform,\n 6 Tort Costs in America 7 (3d ed. Nov. 2024).5 Those costs can dissuade manufacturers from\n 7 investing the vast sums necessary to develop their important products in the first place. See\n 8 Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 784 F.3d 1335, 1346\u201347 (10th Cir. 2015) (Gorsuch, J.) (discussing\n 9 medical devices). At a minimum, increasing litigation costs lead to higher prices, as manufacturers\n 10 are forced to recover the costs through their sales. See Richard L. Manning, Products Liability and\n 11 Prescription Drug Prices in Canada and the United States, 40 J.L. & Econ. 203, 227 (1997)\n 12 (finding that \u201ca substantial premium exists in U.S. pharmaceutical prices, strongly related to the\n 13 prospective costs of litigation, which is absent in the Canadian prices\u201d).\n 14 Such an approach would increase costs for all manufacturers, large and small, as well as\n 15 downstream business enterprises and ordinary consumers, who would face higher prices and have\n 16 access to fewer valuable goods and services. Avoiding that outcome is a worthwhile goal that\n 17 Congress properly pursued through preemption provisions like FIFRA\u2019s. Plaintiffs should not be\n 18 able to avoid those provisions\u2014and impose the very harms Congress sought to prevent\u2014through\n 19 the sort of artful pleading that Plaintiffs are attempting in this case.\n 20 CONCLUSION\n 21 The Court should hold that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are preempted by FIFRA.\n 22\n\n 23 Dated: October 30, 2026 KING & SPALDING LLP\n 24 By: Matthew V.H. Noller\n MATTHEW V.H. NOLLER\n 25 (Bar No. 325180)\n 26 JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ\n (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n 27\n\n 28\n 5\n https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/ilr/2024_ILR_USTorts-CostStudy-FINAL.pdf\n 8\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE Case No. 3:16-md-02741\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T13:56:43.796414-07:00","document_number":"22749","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027868625","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T13:06:46.879682-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.567585-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"12:45:46","entry_number":22749,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.004","pacer_sequence_number":89909,"description":"Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants filed byThe Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, The Washington Legal Foundation. (Noller, Matthew) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483700336/","id":483700336,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499521479/","id":499521479,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22747/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T11:38:28.544141-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.707922-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22747","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027867639","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T11:38:28.526079-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.531488-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"11:05:59","entry_number":22747,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.002","pacer_sequence_number":89903,"description":"STIPULATION Dismissal filed by Jean Belfleur, Yva Paul. (Haberman, Jeffrey) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483700276/","id":483700276,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499521418/","id":499521418,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22748/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T11:38:23.384422-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.729980-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22748","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027867688","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T11:38:23.353709-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.550783-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"11:13:01","entry_number":22748,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.003","pacer_sequence_number":89906,"description":"STIPULATION of Dismissal filed by Robert Levy, Susan Levy. (Haberman, Jeffrey) (Filed on 10/30/2026) (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483691623/","id":483691623,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499512687/","id":499512687,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22746/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T11:04:25.605027-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T07:12:12.550382-08:00","sha1":"742e0060d82c16c29e625312307f102c1a3d280b","page_count":31,"file_size":394465,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.303681/gov.uscourts.cand.303681.22746.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 31 PageID\n #: 453877\n\n\n\n 1 N. John Bey\n President\n 2 Jeffrey R. White\n Senior Associate General Counsel\n 3 American Association for Justice\n 777 6th Street NW, #300\n 4 Washington, DC 20001\n (202) 617-5620\n 5 jeffrey.white@justice.org\n\n 6 Robert S. Peck*\n Counsel of Record\n 7 Center for Constitutional Litigation, PC\n 6817 Vianda Court\n 8 Carlsbad, CA 92009\n (202) 944-2874\n 9 robert.peck@cclfirm.com\n\n10 Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae\n\n11 *APPEARANCE PRO HAC VICE\n PER PTO-1 ENTERED 10/6/2026\n12\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n13\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n14\n\n15 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS MDL No. 2741\n LIABILITY LITIGATION\n16 Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC\n\n17 BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN\n This document relates to: ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE,\n18 ALL CASES ARIZONA ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE,\n FLORIDA JUSTICE ASSOCIATION,\n19 GEORGIA TRIAL LAWYERS\n ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA\n20 ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, MISSISSIPPI\n ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE, AND\n21 OHIO ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE\n AS AMICI CURIAE\n22\n Hon. Vince Chhabria\n23\n\n24\n BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 31 PageID\n #: 453878\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i\n\n 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii\n\n 4 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...................................................................... 1\n\n 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 4\n\n 6 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5\n\n 7 I. DURNELL HELD THAT FIFRA EXPRESSLY PREEMPTS STATE TORT ACTIONS\n THAT REQUIRE A LABEL CHANGE BUT LEFT UNDISTURBED OTHER TORT\n 8 ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED AS VALID IN BATES. .................................. 5\n\n 9 A. Durnell Limited the Preemptive Effect of Its Ruling to Lawsuits that Add to or\n Are Different from FIFRA\u2019s Labeling Regime. .......................................................... 5\n10\n B. Durnell Relied Upon Bates for Its Holding, Leaving Intact the Recognition in\n11 Bates of the Continued Validity of Certain State-Based Causes of Action. ................ 6\n\n12 II. NEGLIGENCE, DESIGN DEFECT, AND EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY\n CLAIMS IN FLORIDA, OHIO, NORTH CAROLINA, MISSISSIPPI, GEORGIA,\n13 AND ARIZONA ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY FIFRA. ................................................. 12\n\n14 A. Negligence Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and\n Are Not Preempted. ................................................................................................... 12\n15\n B. Design-Defect Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and\n16 Are Not Preempted. ................................................................................................... 18\n\n17 C. Warranty Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and\n Are Not Preempted. ................................................................................................... 23\n18\n CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n i BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 31 PageID\n #: 453879\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n 2 Cases\n\n 3 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 2005) ......................................................................... 20\n\n 4 Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015) ......................................................... 19\n\n 5 Auburn Mach. Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1979) .................................................. 19\n\n 6 Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1994) .................................................... 5, 15, 20\n\n 7 Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005)........................... 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 23, 25\n\n 8 Cintron v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 681 So. 2d 859 (Fla. App. 1996) ............................... 15\n\n 9 Crews v. W.A. Brown & Son, Inc., 416 S.E.2d 924 (N.C. App. 1992) .......................................... 12\n\n10 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) .............................................................. 8, 9\n\n11 Dillon v. Zeneca Corp., 42 P.3d 598 (Ariz. App. 2002) ................................................................ 18\n\n12 Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999) ........................................................... 12\n\n13 Donegal Mut. Ins. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 852 N.E.2d 215 (Oh. App. 2006) ..................... 22\n\n14 E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A., 881 So. 2d 1 (Fla. App. 2004) ....................... 19\n\n15 Elliott v. El Paso Corp., 181 So. 3d 263 (Miss. 2015).................................................................. 16\n\n16 Est. of Rotell ex rel. Rotell v. Kuehnle, 38 So. 3d 783 (Fla. App. 2010) ....................................... 12\n\n17 Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228 (Ariz. 2007) ................................................................................. 12\n\n18 Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1992) ................................................ 16, 17\n\n19 Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc., 344 So. 3d 11 (Fla. App. 2022)..................................................... 19\n\n20 Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................11\n\n21 Hopkins v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 432 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. App. 1993) ................................................ 21\n\n22 KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 340 P.3d 405 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) .......... 14\n\n23 Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp., 218 N.E.2d 185 (Ohio 1966) ................................................... 24\n ii BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 31 PageID\n #: 453880\n\n\n\n 1 Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp., 591 P.3d 886 (Ariz. 2026).................................................. 14, 18\n\n 2 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) ................................................................................. 8\n\n 3 Miller v. Ford Motor Co., 653 S.E.2d 82 (Ga. App. 2007) ........................................................... 15\n\n 4 Monsanto Agric. Prods. Co. v. Edenfield, 426 So.2d 574 (Fla. App. 1982) ................................. 15\n\n 5 Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026) .........................................................4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11\n\n 6 Murphy v. Nat\u2019l Collegiate Athletic Ass\u2019n, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).................................................... 8\n\n 7 Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022) ......................................................................... 9\n\n 8 Rasnick v. Krishna Hosp., Inc., 713 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2011) ......................................................... 12\n\n 9 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947) ................................................................... 9\n\n10 Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) .............................................................................. 6\n\n11 Sattelmyer v. Covidien, LLC, 2026-Ohio-1623, 2026 WL 1229719 (Ohio App. 2026) ............... 18\n\n12 Smith v. Hartz Mountain Corp., No. 3:12-CV-00662, 2012 WL 5451726 (N.D. Ohio 2012) ...... 23\n\n13 Specialty Marine & Indus. Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So. 3d 306 (Fla. App. 2011) .................... 15\n\n14 Sutton v. Major Prods. Co., 372 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. App. 1988) .................................................... 17\n\n15 United Haulers Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007) .11\n\n16 Warner v. Am. Fluoride Corp., 616 N.Y.S.2d 534 (N.Y. App. 1994)............................................ 14\n\n17 Westfield Ins. Co. v. HULS Am., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 934 (Ohio App. 1998) .................................... 12\n\n18 Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) .........................................................11\n\n19 Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) ............................................................................................. 8\n\n20 Statutes\n\n21 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136 ................................................................................................................................. 6\n\n22 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136a ..............................................................................................................................11\n\n23 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136d ..........................................................................................................................6, 11\n iii BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 31 PageID\n #: 453881\n\n\n\n 1 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136n ............................................................................................................................... 6\n\n 2 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v ......................................................................................................................... 6, 12\n\n 3 Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 12-681 ............................................................................................................... 14\n\n 4 Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 12-683 ............................................................................................................... 15\n\n 5 Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 47-2313 ............................................................................................................. 23\n\n 6 Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 47-2314 ............................................................................................................. 24\n\n 7 Fla. Stat. \u00a7 672.313 ....................................................................................................................... 23\n\n 8 Fla. Stat. \u00a7 672.314 ....................................................................................................................... 24\n\n 9 Ga. Code \u00a7 11-2-313 ..................................................................................................................... 23\n\n10 Ga. Code \u00a7 11-2-314 ..................................................................................................................... 24\n\n11 Ga. Code \u00a7 2-7-170 ....................................................................................................................... 16\n\n12 Miss. Code \u00a7 11-1-63 .............................................................................................................. 16, 21\n\n13 Miss. Code \u00a7 11-1-65 .................................................................................................................... 16\n\n14 Miss. Code \u00a7 75-2-313 .................................................................................................................. 23\n\n15 Miss. Code \u00a7 75-2-314 .................................................................................................................. 24\n\n16 Miss. Code \u00a7 75-2-315 .................................................................................................................. 24\n\n17 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-2-313 ........................................................................................................... 23\n\n18 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-2-314 ........................................................................................................... 24\n\n19 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 99B-1 ................................................................................................................ 17\n\n20 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 99B-6 ................................................................................................................ 21\n\n21 Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1302.26 ............................................................................................................ 23\n\n22 Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1302.27 ............................................................................................................ 24\n\n23 Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.71 ...................................................................................................... 17, 18\n iv BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 31 PageID\n #: 453882\n\n\n\n 1 Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.74 ............................................................................................................ 18\n\n 2 Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.75 ............................................................................................................ 22\n\n 3 Other Authorities\n\n 4 1 Hawkland UCC Series \u00a7 2-314:3............................................................................................... 24\n\n 5 Brief for Former EPA Offs. & Env\u2019t Prot. Network as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent,\n Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026) (No. 24-1068), 2026 WL 973472 .................. 10\n 6\n Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell,\n 7 609 U.S. 371 (2026) (No. 24-1068), 2026 WL 673938 .............................................................11\n\n 8 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman,\n 142 S. Ct. 2834 (2022) (No. 21-241), 2022 WL 1489462 .........................................................11\n 9\n Investigation of Bayer CropScience LP and Monsanto Co., Assurance No. 23-025\n10 (N.Y. Atty. Gen. Env\u2019t Prot. Bureau Jun. 8, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/4ej8e76y .............. 13, 14\n\n11 Transcript of Oral Argument, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026)\n (No. 24-1068), https://tinyurl.com/e93hptut ....................................................................8, 10, 11\n12\n U.C.C. \u00a7 2-314 .............................................................................................................................. 24\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n v BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 31 PageID\n #: 453883\n\n\n\n 1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE\n\n 2 The American Association for Justice (AAJ) is a national, voluntary bar association\n\n 3 established in 1946 to strengthen the civil justice system, preserve the right to trial by jury, and\n\n 4 protect access to the courts for those who have been wrongfully injured. With members in the\n\n 5 United States, Canada, and abroad, AAJ is the world\u2019s largest plaintiff trial bar. AAJ members\n\n 6 practice law in every state in the United States and primarily represent plaintiffs in personal injury\n\n 7 actions, employment rights cases, consumer cases, and other civil actions. For more than 80 years,\n\n 8 AAJ has served as a leading advocate for the right of all Americans to seek legal recourse for\n\n 9 wrongful conduct. Victims of toxic exposure are frequently represented by AAJ members in their\n\n10 civil suits.\n\n11 AAJ\u2019s mission, set forth in its bylaws, aims to \u201cPreserve the constitutional right to trial by\n\n12 jury\u201d and \u201cFurther the rule of law and the civil justice system.\u201d To that end, it often participates in\n\n13 cases throughout the country as amicus curiae. Relevant to the matter before this Court, AAJ\n\n14 participated in the Supreme Court as amicus curiae in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371\n\n15 (2026), and as an amicus curiae before this Court in this case in 2021. It was also an amicus curiae\n\n16 in two cases relied upon by the Supreme Court in its Durnell decision: Bates v. Dow Agrosciences\n\n17 LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), and Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008).\n\n18 Each of the co-amici state trial lawyer associations listed below is a state affiliate of the\n\n19 American Association for Justice (AAJ), having been approved as such by the AAJ Board of\n\n20 Governors as having the same purposes of AAJ.\n\n21 The Arizona Association for Justice (AzAJ) is a nonprofit, voluntary bar association of\n\n22 Arizona lawyers who represent injured people. Founded in 1964 as the Arizona Trial Lawyers\n\n23 Association, AzAJ works to preserve, protect, and promote a fair and effective justice system,\n 1 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 31 PageID\n #: 453884\n\n\n\n 1 including the right to trial by jury, and to protect the health and safety of Arizona families. AzAJ\u2019s\n\n 2 membership includes thousands of attorneys throughout Arizona who collectively represent\n\n 3 millions of individuals.\n\n 4 The Florida Justice Association (FJA) is a statewide association of more than 3,500\n\n 5 attorneys, including trial lawyers, consumer advocates, and injured victims. Founded in 1961, the\n\n 6 FJA is dedicated to strengthening and preserving Florida\u2019s civil justice system and protecting the\n\n 7 rights of Florida\u2019s citizens and consumers. In furtherance of its mission, the FJA regularly\n\n 8 participates as amicus curiae in matters affecting the rights of injured individuals, access to the\n\n 9 courts, and the administration of civil justice.\n\n10 The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) is a voluntary organization of about\n\n11 2,000 trial lawyers throughout Georgia who represent people injured by the wrongdoing of others.\n\n12 GTLA\u2019s mission is to protect the constitutional promise of justice for all by guaranteeing the right\n\n13 to trial by jury, preserving an independent judiciary, and providing Georgians access to the courts.\n\n14 The North Carolina Advocates for Justice (NCAJ) is a professional organization of over\n\n15 1,800 North Carolina lawyers. A primary purpose of NCAJ is the advancement and protection of\n\n16 the rights of individuals injured or damaged by the harmful conduct of others. In furtherance of its\n\n17 mission, NCAJ regularly conducts continuing legal education seminars and appears as amicus\n\n18 curiae before state and federal courts.\n\n19 The Mississippi Association for Justice (MAJ) is an organization composed of nearly\n\n20 600 attorneys that work to ensure that any person who is injured by the misconduct and negligence\n\n21 of others can get justice in the courtroom, even when taking on the most powerful interests. MAJ is\n\n22 committed to strengthening the civil justice system so that deserving individuals can get justice\n\n23 and wrongdoers are held accountable. The organization opposes efforts to weaken basic legal\n 2 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 31 PageID\n #: 453885\n\n\n\n 1 protections and further stack the deck against average Mississippians. MAJ is committed to\n\n 2 protecting the health and safety of Mississippi families, to enhancing consumer protections, and to\n\n 3 preserving each and every citizen\u2019s right to trial by jury and access to the courts.\n\n 4 The Ohio Association for Justice (OAJ) is the only statewide, non-profit association of\n\n 5 attorneys whose mission is to preserve the constitutional right and protect access to the civil justice\n\n 6 system for all Ohioans as provided for in the Seventh Amendment to the United States\n\n 7 Constitution, and Ohio\u2019s Open Courts clause, Ohio Const. art. 1, \u00a7 16. Founded in 1954, OAJ\n\n 8 currently consists of more than 1,100 lawyers dedicated to the constitutional guarantee stated in\n\n 9 plain English: the right to trial by jury \u201cshall be inviolate.\u201d Inviolate does not mean \u201coccasionally\n\n10 abridged,\u201d \u201ctempered by policy,\u201d or \u201csubject to legislative tinkering.\u201d It means kept sacred or\n\n11 untouched. OAJ\u2019s mission is to see that deserving individuals\u2014especially those who have suffered\n\n12 catastrophic, life-altering injuries\u2014have their claims decided by a fair and impartial jury of their\n\n13 peers and thereby sustain public confidence in the civil courts.\n\n14 In the matter before this Court, amici endeavor to explain why Durnell carefully cabined\n\n15 its holding to those failure-to-warn tort matters that, if successful, \u201crequire Monsanto to add a\n\n16 cancer warning to Roundup\u2019s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-\n\n17 approved label without a cancer warning.\u201d 609 U.S. at 376. At the same time, it left the framework\n\n18 articulated in Bates undisturbed and thereby permits plaintiffs to prosecute a number of state tort-\n\n19 law claims without limitation due to any preemptive effect flowing from the Federal Insecticide,\n\n20 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Each of the States that are named in this Court\u2019s inquiry\n\n21 to amici authorize lawsuits that fit the exceptions recognized in Bates and, by extension, in\n\n22\n\n23\n 3 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 31 PageID\n #: 453886\n\n\n\n 1 Durnell. 1\n\n 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT\n\n 3 In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026), the Supreme Court limited itself to\n\n 4 holding that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state\n\n 5 causes of action that require a pesticide manufacturer to add to or provide different labeling than\n\n 6 was approved under the statutory scheme by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In\n\n 7 reaching its holding, the Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences\n\n 8 LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), following its approach and leaving the remainder of its rationale\n\n 9 undisturbed.\n\n10 Bates made a clear distinction between a cause of action that imposes a labeling\n\n11 requirement, as was the case in Durnell, and one that merely motivates or induces the manufacturer\n\n12 to seek a labeling change. Bates, 544 U.S. at 443. Because Congress limited FIFRA\u2019s preemptive\n\n13 effect to labeling or packaging, Bates rejected an effects or inducement test in favor of a purely\n\n14 textual approach. Id. at 445\u201346. It further recognized that promises made on the label will not\n\n15 insulate a manufacturer from liability for its warranties. Id. at 444. For that reason, the Bates Court\n\n16 held that \u201cclaims for defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of\n\n17 express warranty are not pre-empted.\u201d Id.\n\n18 Each of the States in this Court\u2019s inquiry have viable causes of action for negligence,\n\n19 defective design, and breach of warranty that do not cross FIFRA\u2019s preemptive line. As explained\n\n20 in detail below, none would require a labeling change nor could they be said to constitute a\n\n21\n 1\n Amici are not incorporating individually pleaded facts into our brief. Rather than discuss whether\n22\n the cases before this Court were properly pleaded, amici instead focus more on the applicable legal\n standards both nationally and in the individual States.\n23\n 4 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 31 PageID\n #: 453887\n\n\n\n 1 disguised request to force such a change. Moreover, several of the States have longstanding\n\n 2 precedent that recognize FIFRA\u2019s preemptive effect on labeling requirements, anticipating the\n\n 3 recent decision in Durnell, yet still find the other causes of action are not preempted. In one, for\n\n 4 example, Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1994), the Georgia Supreme Court\n\n 5 found a failure-to-warn claim preempted under FIFRA, but not an accompanying claim about a\n\n 6 design defect because it imposed no requirement to add or change a label warning.\n\n 7 At bottom, lawsuits that seek to hold a pesticide manufacturer liable for negligence in\n\n 8 selling unreasonably unsafe products, conducting inadequate testing, including inherently\n\n 9 dangerous facets to the product\u2019s design, making knowingly false statements about product safety,\n\n10 or violating warranties or other contractual commitments plainly do not qualify as requirements\n\n11 for \u201clabeling or packaging\u201d and are not preempted.\n\n12\n ARGUMENT\n13\n I. DURNELL HELD THAT FIFRA EXPRESSLY PREEMPTS STATE TORT\n14 ACTIONS THAT REQUIRE A LABEL CHANGE BUT LEFT UNDISTURBED\n OTHER TORT ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED AS VALID IN BATES.\n15\n A. Durnell Limited the Preemptive Effect of Its Ruling to Lawsuits that Add to\n16 or Are Different from FIFRA\u2019s Labeling Regime.\n\n17 Durnell held FIFRA expressly preempted a state \u201cfailure-to-warn tort suit in Missouri state\n\n18 court against Monsanto for not including a cancer warning on Roundup\u2019s label.\u201d 609 U.S. at 375.\n\n19 The Court explained its rationale in terms that limited the reach of its conclusion: \u201cDurnell\u2019s state\n\n20 tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup\u2019s label even though federal\n\n21 law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning.\u201d Id. at 376\n\n22 (emphasis added); see also id. at 383 (\u201c[T]he heart of Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim under\n\n23 Missouri tort law is that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on its Roundup labels.\u201d).\n 5 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 31 PageID\n #: 453888\n\n\n\n 1 Thus, \u201c[b]ecause Durnell\u2019s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement \u2018in\n\n 2 addition to or different from\u2019 the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell\u2019s\n\n 3 claim\u201d invoking 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(b). Id.\n\n 4 As the Court further explained, adding a warning not required by EPA would result in\n\n 5 misbranding, which comprises \u201c\u2018any statement\u2019 that is \u2018false or misleading\u2019 or if the label does not\n\n 6 contain \u2018a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and . . . adequate to protect health\n\n 7 and the environment.\u2019\u201d Id. at 371 (citing 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 136(q)(1)(A), (G)). Because the \u201cEPA\u2019s\n\n 8 registration of the pesticide and approval of the pesticide\u2019s label embodies the agency\u2019s considered\n\n 9 judgment that a pesticide is not misbranded,\u201d a state-imposed alternative label would constitute\n\n10 misbranding. The rationale adopted in Durnell demonstrates judicial deference to the EPA\u2019s view\n\n11 that \u201cglyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] is not likely to cause cancer\u201d for purposes of\n\n12 labeling. 2 Id. at 375.\n\n13\n B. Durnell Relied Upon Bates for Its Holding, Leaving Intact the Recognition in\n14 Bates of the Continued Validity of Certain State-Based Causes of Action.\n\n15 Durnell\u2019s holding and reach are largely defined by its reliance on Bates. 3 It cited Bates, for\n\n16 example, for its observation that \u201c[f]ailure-to-warn claims, like Durnell\u2019s claim here, \u2018are premised\n\n17 on common-law rules that qualify\u2019 as labeling requirements because those \u2018rules set a standard for\n\n18 a product\u2019s labeling.\u2019\u201d Durnell, 609 U.S. at 383 (quoting Bates, 544 U.S. at 446).\n\n19\n\n20 2\n Even so, Durnell recognized that courts may override EPA\u2019s refusal to change a label through\n judicial review of EPA\u2019s decision. 609 U.S. at 380 (citing 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 136n(a), 136d(h)).\n21\n 3\n The Court also relied upon Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), largely because it\n22\n \u201cfurther confirms that Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim is expressly preempted\u201d because Riegel\n examined a comparable labeling regime for medical devices. Durnell, 609 U.S. at 386.\n23\n 6 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 31 PageID\n #: 453889\n\n\n\n 1\n 1. Bates and, by extension, Durnell, recognized a number of state causes of\n 2 action unaffected by FIFRA\u2019s preemptive scope.\n\n 3 Even so, Bates took pains to explain a difference between \u201crequirements,\u201d which FIFRA\n\n 4 preempts, and claims that do not require a labeling change. Durnell marked no deviation from the\n\n 5 Bates formulation and, indeed, emphasized how its decision on preemption is similarly anchored\n\n 6 in what constitutes \u201crequirements.\u201d See, e.g., Durnell, 609 U.S. at 395. It is therefore critical to\n\n 7 keep in mind that a \u201crequirement that would be preempted . . . is a rule of law that must be obeyed.\u201d\n\n 8 Id. at 402 (quoting Bates, 544 U.S. at 445). Those prescriptive directives, the Durnell Court further\n\n 9 explained, include \u201c\u2018positive enactments, such as statutes and regulations,\u2019 as well as \u2018common-\n\n10 law duties.\u2019\u201d Id. (quoting Bates, 544 U.S. at 443).\n\n11 In fact, Bates established a two-part test for FIFRA preemption: (1) the state rule must\n\n12 constitute a requirement \u201cfor labeling or packaging,\u201d and (2) that requirement must be \u201cin addition\n\n13 to or different from\u201d the requirements imposed under FIFRA. Bates, 544 U.S. at 444. The test\n\n14 makes plain that claims which do not impose additional or different labeling or packaging\n\n15 requirements remain viable.\n\n16 Bates further specifically recognized that a state action that \u201cmerely motivates an optional\n\n17 decision does not qualify as a requirement,\u201d including an \u201cevent, such as a jury verdict, that might\n\n18 \u2018induce\u2019 a pesticide manufacturer to change its label.\u201d Id. at 443. To make its holding perfectly\n\n19 clear, the Bates Court declared:\n\n20 Rules that require manufacturers to design reasonably safe products,\n to use due care in conducting appropriate testing of their products,\n21 to market products free of manufacturing defects, and to honor their\n express warranties or other contractual commitments plainly do not\n22 qualify as requirements for \u201clabeling or packaging.\u201d\n\n23 Id. at 444.\n 7 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 31 PageID\n #: 453890\n\n\n\n 1 For that reason, \u201cclaims for defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and\n\n 2 breach of express warranty are not pre-empted.\u201d Id. 4 As to the last example, Bates observed that\n\n 3 \u201ca cause of action on an express warranty asks only that a manufacturer make good on the\n\n 4 contractual commitment that it voluntarily undertook by placing that warranty on its product.\u201d Id.\n\n 5 In rejecting both inducement and effects tests, Bates acknowledged that a \u201cdesign defect claim, if\n\n 6 successful, would surely induce a manufacturer to alter its label to reflect a change in the list of\n\n 7 ingredients or a change in the instructions for use necessitated by the improvement in the product\u2019s\n\n 8 design,\u201d but that consequence still could not be said to impose a \u201crequirement.\u201d Id. at 445\u201346.\n\n 9 Additionally, FIFRA permits state-law claims that parallel FIFRA\u2019s misbranding\n\n10 prohibition as in aid of the federal scheme. Id. at 447, 451. That points to the fact that federal\n\n11 preemption exists when conflicts arise between federal and state law. See Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S.\n\n12 555, 593 (2009); see also Murphy v. Nat\u2019l Collegiate Athletic Ass\u2019n, 584 U.S. 453, 477 (2018).\n\n13 The preemptive effect of FIFRA must be read against the \u201clong history of tort litigation against\n\n14 manufacturers of poisonous substances.\u201d Bates, 544 U.S. at 449. The Bates Court observed that,\n\n15 \u201c[i]f Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it\n\n16 surely would have expressed that intent more clearly.\u201d Id.\n\n17 That observation about expressing congressional intent recognizes those purposes as the\n\n18 \u201cultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.\u201d Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485\n\n19 (1996); see also CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993) (\u201c[P]re-emption will\n\n20\n\n21 4\n At oral argument in Durnell, in response to a question from Justice Barrett, counsel for Monsanto\n conceded that, if not a disguised failure-to-warn claim, \u201cdesign defect claims are not preempted.\u201d\n22\n Transcript of Oral Argument at 32, Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026) (No. 24-1068),\n https://tinyurl.com/e93hptut.\n23\n 8 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 31 PageID\n #: 453891\n\n\n\n 1 not lie unless it is \u2018the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.\u2019\u201d) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe\n\n 2 Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Moreover, the plain wording of the statutory text serves\n\n 3 as the \u201cbest evidence of Congress\u2019 pre-emptive intent.\u201d Id. Cf. Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597\n\n 4 U.S. 629, 642 (2022) (\u201cCongress expresses its intentions through statutory text,\u201d which \u201ccontrols\n\n 5 over purported legislative intentions unmoored from any statutory text.\u201d).\n\n 6 Bates and Durnell make clear that preemption as reflected by congressional intent and express\n\n 7 statutory language is limited to state causes of action that require labeling changes from what the\n\n 8 EPA has approved.\n\n 9\n 2. Durnell appears to give broader validity to efficacy-based causes of action\n10 than Bates articulated.\n\n11 In one respect, Durnell appears to have expanded the state-based causes of action that Bates\n\n12 found valid. Bates observed that Congress amended FIFRA in 1978 to authorize an EPA waiver of\n\n13 data requirements pertaining to a pesticide\u2019s efficacy after the EPA complained about the resource-\n\n14 intensive burden it placed on the agency. 544 U.S. at 440. The EPA has taken advantage of that\n\n15 authority. See id. at 450. The absence of a federal role there plainly opened the door to state\n\n16 regulation, including through tort lawsuits, that may find expression in design or manufacturing\n\n17 defects, negligent testing, and warranty-based cases that Bates recognized were not preempted.\n\n18 In Durnell, the Court explained what Bates held by saying the claim under review in that\n\n19 case \u201ctargeted a pesticide label\u2019s efficacy claims,\u201d and \u201c[t]hose state tort claims were not\n\n20 preempted.\u201d 609 U.S. at 386. It ascribed a distinction to Bates that had previously gone\n\n21 uncommented upon. It said the EPA does not review efficacy claims as a part of registration, but\n\n22 undertakes a thorough review of safety claims so that they \u201care therefore preempted.\u201d Id. The\n\n23 discussion departs somewhat from the express preemption approach articulated earlier in the\n 9 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 31 PageID\n #: 453892\n\n\n\n 1 opinion. It ties active federal approval to preemption but, when the EPA does not exercise allocated\n\n 2 authority, no preemption attaches. As such, the Court allows States and their tort actions to fill a\n\n 3 vacuum created by EPA inaction through waiver of authority.\n\n 4 Perhaps the majority\u2019s willingness to expand what Bates said with respect to efficacy\n\n 5 claims reflects certain concerns the Court heard in briefing and oral argument. For example, an\n\n 6 amicus brief filed in Durnell by former EPA officials estimated that \u201cover 90% of the time, EPA\u2019s\n\n 7 periodic reviews of previously registered pesticides uncover new information that results in\n\n 8 changes to use restrictions on labeling, or even cancellation of registration.\u201d Brief for Former EPA\n\n 9 Offs. & Env\u2019t Prot. Network as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent at 6, Durnell, 609 U.S. 371\n\n10 (2026) (No. 24-1068), 2026 WL 973472. The point is that much is learned between EPA reviews.\n\n11 The expansion of Bates may also be a function of addressing a concern the author of the\n\n12 Durnell dissent expressed during oral argument. Justice Jackson raised a comparable concern that\n\n13 EPA review may not be as nimble as needed because EPA determinations are made \u201con existing\n\n14 evidence[, b]ut there\u2019s a 15-year window between when that product has to be reregistered again,\n\n15 and lots of things can happen in science in terms of developments about the product.\u201d Durnell Oral\n\n16 Arg., supra, at 32.\n\n17 The chief justice also articulated a related concern. He said: \u201cif it turns out that [the States]\n\n18 were right [about a pesticide causing cancer], it might have been good if they had an opportunity\n\n19 to do something to call this danger to the attention of the people while the federal government was\n\n20 going through its -- its process.\u201d Id. at 47\u221248. The response from the United States in argument\n\n21 provided some reassurance so that Chief Justice Roberts asked, \u201cSo the only thing that we need to\n\n22 worry about is the labeling, but the states can do anything else with respect to the particular cancer\n\n23\n 10 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 31 PageID\n #: 453893\n\n\n\n 1 that they would like?\u201d Id. at 48. The deputy solicitor general responded with a yes and added that\n\n 2 States can even ban the pesticide. Id.\n\n 3 To be sure, Durnell credited the EPA with \u201crepeatedly conclud[ing] that glyphosate is not\n\n 4 likely to cause cancer,\u201d despite contrary conclusions from other respected quarters. 609 U.S. at\n\n 5 375. Still, the United States has taken inconsistent recent positions on that. The United States\n\n 6 opposed certiorari in Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142\n\n 7 S. Ct. 2834 (2022), and told the Court that the EPA does not assess chronic risks, including cancer,\n\n 8 as part of its registration review. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 11, Monsanto Co.\n\n 9 v. Hardeman, 142 S. Ct. 2834 (2022) (No. 21-241), 2022 WL 1489462. However, after a change\n\n10 of administration with no intervening agency action, it asserted the \u201cEPA addresses all\n\n11 unreasonable risks to human health, including chronic risks like cancer, in deciding whether to\n\n12 register a pesticide in the first place and whether to cancel that registration.\u201d Brief for the United\n\n13 States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 19 n.4, Durnell, 609 U.S. 371 (2026) (No. 24-\n\n14 1068), 2026 WL 673938 (citing 7 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 136a(c)(5)(D), 136d(b)).\n\n15 Nonetheless, every level of \u201cgovernment is vested with the responsibility of protecting the\n\n16 health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.\u201d United Haulers Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid\n\n17 Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330, 342 (2007); see also id. at 343 (noting that public health, safety,\n\n18 and welfare \u201cresponsibilities set state and local government apart from a typical private business\u201d).\n\n19 FIFRA accommodates those responsibilities by explicitly authorizing States (and by implication,\n\n20 even localities) 5 to \u201cregulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the\n\n21\n 5\n The Supreme Court had previously examined FIFRA and held \u201cit is doubtful that Congress\n22\n intended to exclude localities from the scope of \u00a7 136v(a)\u2019s authorization.\u201d Wisconsin Pub.\n Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 613 (1991).\n23\n 11 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 31 PageID\n #: 453894\n\n\n\n 1 State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this\n\n 2 subchapter.\u201d 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 136v(a). By its terms, this provision allows States and local governments\n\n 3 to place further restrictions on the use of pesticides, even if the statute precludes greater liberality\n\n 4 in their usage. A pesticide that fails to meet EPA standards may not be used, but an EPA-approved\n\n 5 pesticide can still be banned locally. That statutorily authorized lack of uniformity reflects\n\n 6 knowledge that geographic differences affect the toxicity and usefulness of pesticides and reflect\n\n 7 FIFRA\u2019s commitment to the States\u2019 and localities\u2019 \u201cbroad authority to regulate the sale and use of\n\n 8 pesticides.\u201d Bates, 544 U.S. at 446.\n\n 9 II. NEGLIGENCE, DESIGN DEFECT, AND EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY\n CLAIMS IN FLORIDA, OHIO, NORTH CAROLINA, MISSISSIPPI, GEORGIA,\n10 AND ARIZONA ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY FIFRA.\n\n11 As a general matter, Durnell should not adversely affect any of the causes of action in this\n\n12 Court\u2019s inquiry because none would require a labeling change. To support that notion, amici will\n\n13 review the basic elements of each cause of action in the States identified by this Court.\n\n14\n A. Negligence Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and Are\n15 Not Preempted.\n\n16 The universal elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, and a causal connection to\n\n17 the injury. None of the States in the Court\u2019s inquiry deviate from this formulation, although all but\n\n18 Ohio also make resulting damages an essential element of the tort. See Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d\n\n19 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007); Est. of Rotell ex rel. Rotell v. Kuehnle, 38 So. 3d 783, 788 (Fla. App. 2010);\n\n20 Rasnick v. Krishna Hosp., Inc., 713 S.E.2d 835, 837 (Ga. 2011); Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735\n\n21 So. 2d 161, 174 (Miss. 1999); Crews v. W.A. Brown & Son, Inc., 416 S.E.2d 924, 928 (N.C. App.\n\n22 1992) (citation omitted); Westfield Ins. Co. v. HULS Am., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 934, 942 (Ohio App.\n\n23 1998).\n 12 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 31 PageID\n #: 453895\n\n\n\n 1 Where failure to warn is not the basis of the negligence claim, claims for negligence can\n\n 2 proceed without concern that they are preempted by FIFRA. Plaintiffs in the Roundup cases have\n\n 3 made a number of negligence claims that remain viable. They have asserted that the manufacturer\n\n 4 acted unreasonably by inadequately testing the human and product toxicity of glyphosate, its inert\n\n 5 ingredients, and its final formulations before selling it. Bates still provides mandatory precedent\n\n 6 for the proposition that claims based on negligent testing are not preempted because the cause of\n\n 7 action does not constitute a requirement for \u201clabeling or packaging.\u201d 544 U.S. at 444.\n\n 8 Plaintiffs have asserted that Roundup was promoted through deceptive marketing or false\n\n 9 advertising that erroneously claimed the product was safe and non-toxic to humans. The public\n\n10 record supports these allegations. For example, Monsanto ran advertisements in the 1990s that\n\n11 claimed Roundup was safer than table salt and \u201cpractically non-toxic.\u201d Investigation of Bayer\n\n12 CropScience LP and Monsanto Co., Assurance No. 23-025, at 2, \u00b6 1 (N.Y. Atty. Gen. Env\u2019t Prot.\n\n13 Bureau Jun. 8, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/4ej8e76y. In 1996, Monsanto settled those accusations\n\n14 with the New York Attorney General and agreed to end advertising which even \u201cby implication\n\n15 [suggested] . . . glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are safer or\n\n16 less toxic than common consumer products other than herbicides,\u201d as well as environmental and\n\n17 health claims that were not \u201cqualified and substantiated\u201d as the agreement outlined. Id. at 3, \u00b6 5;\n\n18 id. at 2, \u00b6\u00b6 2\u20133.\n\n19 Nevertheless, the manufacturer posted a YouTube video on October 1, 2019, which claimed\n\n20 that \u201cRoundup\u00ae weed and grass killer products won\u2019t harm anything but weeds.\u201d Id. at 8, \u00b6 25.\n\n21 The New York Attorney General\u2019s new investigation found numerous other breaches of the 1996\n\n22 agreement. See id. at 8, \u00b6 26; id. at 10, \u00b6 32. As a result of that investigation, without admitting or\n\n23 denying the findings, Bayer and Monsanto agreed in 2023 to cease publishing the identified and\n 13 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 31 PageID\n #: 453896\n\n\n\n 1 similar advertising, to oversight and monitoring, to potential future penalties for breaching the\n\n 2 agreement, and to pay immediate monetary relief to New York of $6,900,000, among other things.\n\n 3 Id. at 13, \u00b6 44; id. at 18, \u00b6 50. The investigation would not have been valid or the settlement reached\n\n 4 if FIFRA preempted deceptive marketing or false advertising claims, as existing New York law\n\n 5 recognized that FIFRA expressly preempted state causes of action that \u201crequire a showing that the\n\n 6 defendants\u2019 labeling and packaging were a factor in causing his injuries\u201d as early as 1994, Warner\n\n 7 v. Am. Fluoride Corp., 616 N.Y.S.2d 534, 541 (N.Y. App. 1994), which is consistent with the more\n\n 8 recent Supreme Court decisions in Durnell and Bates.\n\n 9 The representations at issue do not fall within the EPA\u2019s labeling authority, were not\n\n10 approved or mandated by the EPA, and do not reflect claims that would result in new labeling and\n\n11 packaging requirements. As a result, they fall outside the preemptive scope of FIFRA. Each\n\n12 breached a duty that gives rise to negligence or product liability claims in each of the subject States.\n\n13 1. Arizona\n\n14 In Arizona, a \u201cclaim for relief for negligent misrepresentation is one governed by the\n\n15 principles of the law of negligence.\u201d KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 340 P.3d\n\n16 405, 411 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). Moreover, a \u201cmanufacturer is liable for harm caused by a product\n\n17 sold \u201cin a defective condition unreasonably dangerous.\u201d Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp., 591 P.3d\n\n18 886, 889 (Ariz. 2026). The requirements of being in \u201cdefective condition\u201d and being \u201cunreasonably\n\n19 dangerous\u201d are separate requirements of the cause of action that must both be proven. Id. at 892.\n\n20 By statute, the State defines a product-liability action as embracing injury from any of a number\n\n21 of diverse and distinct claims, including testing failures that result in injury. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7\n\n22 12-681(5). A manufacturer may successfully defend a negligent testing claim by showing that the\n\n23 \u201cmethods and techniques\u201d used \u201cconformed with the state of the art at the time the product was\n 14 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 31 PageID\n #: 453897\n\n\n\n 1 first sold.\u201d Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 12-683(1). Nothing in these negligence-based causes of action\n\n 2 requires a labeling change and, thus, consistent with Bates, is not preempted.\n\n 3 2. Florida\n\n 4 Florida, too, recognizes claims for negligent misrepresentation. See Specialty Marine &\n\n 5 Indus. Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So. 3d 306, 309 (Fla. App. 2011) (listing its elements).\n\n 6 It also \u201cimposes upon manufacturers a duty to exercise reasonable care so that their\n\n 7 products in the marketplace will not harm persons or property.\u201d Cintron v. Osmose Wood\n\n 8 Preserving, Inc., 681 So. 2d 859, 861\u201362 (Fla. App. 1996) (citing Monsanto Agric. Prods. Co. v.\n\n 9 Edenfield, 426 So.2d 574 (Fla. App. 1982)). Cintron held a complaint that \u201caverred [the\n\n10 manufacturer] failed to conduct reasonable tests and inspections to discover the defective\n\n11 conditions before placing the fire retardant chemicals and Flameproof LHC plywood into the\n\n12 stream of commerce\u201d stated a claim for negligence. Id. at 862.\n\n13 3. Georgia\n\n14 Georgia recognizes a cause of action for negligent manufacture, which requires a plaintiff\n\n15 to show \u201ca defect in the product when it left the manufacturer that was caused by the manufacturer's\n\n16 negligence.\u201d Miller v. Ford Motor Co., 653 S.E.2d 82, 84 (Ga. App. 2007). Such a claim is distinct\n\n17 from failure-to-warn claims. See Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671, 672 (Ga. 1994)\n\n18 (stating Georgia has \u201cthree general categories of product defects: manufacturing defects, design\n\n19 defects, and marketing/packaging defects.\u201d). Because negligent manufacturing has no implications\n\n20 for labeling and because a separate cause of action exists in Georgia, a successful claim for\n\n21 negligent manufacturing does not require additions to or different labeling and thus does not offend\n\n22 the preemptive scope of FIFRA.\n\n23\n 15 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 31 PageID\n #: 453898\n\n\n\n 1 It is worth noting that Georgia has a statute that immunizes those who use or apply a\n\n 2 pesticide covered by FIFRA without a showing of \u201cnegligence or lack of due care.\u201d Ga. Code \u00a7 2-\n\n 3 7-170(a). However, the Georgia legislature did not extend that immunity to manufacturers of\n\n 4 pesticides. See id. \u00a7 2-7-170(b) (\u201cNothing in this article shall affect or limit any right of action of\n\n 5 an individual against any person, firm, or corporation engaged in an agricultural or farming\n\n 6 operation for injury to person or property resulting from such chemical application or use.\u201d).\n\n 7 4. Mississippi\n\n 8 In Mississippi, product-related claims are governed by the Mississippi Products Liability\n\n 9 Act (MPLA), Miss. Code \u00a7 11-1-63. It \u201cabrogated products-liability claims based on strict-liability\n\n10 or negligence theories, and the MPLA now provides the roadmap for such claims.\u201d Elliott v. El\n\n11 Paso Corp., 181 So. 3d 263, 268 (Miss. 2015). Among the separate causes of action the MPLA\n\n12 expressly recognizes are claims based on inadequate testing or manufacture of a product. See Miss.\n\n13 Code \u00a7 11-1-65(2) (including a seller in the manufacturer\u2019s liability for those causes of actions if\n\n14 the seller \u201cexercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture,\n\n15 packaging or labeling of the product that caused the harm for which recovery of damages is\n\n16 sought.\u201d). The statute\u2019s separate listing of packaging or labeling renders those causes of actions\n\n17 separate and apart from what would otherwise be recognized as negligent testing and manufacture\n\n18 under other States\u2019 laws.\n\n19 5. North Carolina\n\n20 North Carolina\u2019s product liability jurisprudence requires the maker of a product \u201cto use\n\n21 reasonable care in the manufacture and inspection of the article so as not to subject the purchaser\n\n22 to injury from a latent defect.\u201d Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 423 S.E.2d 444, 457 (N.C. 1992).\n\n23 When bringing such an action based on negligence, a plaintiff must \u201cshow that the manufactured\n 16 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 31 PageID\n #: 453899\n\n\n\n 1 product was defective when it left the manufacturer\u2019s plant and that the manufacturer \u2018was\n\n 2 negligent in its design of the product, in its selection of materials, in its assembly process, or in\n\n 3 inspection of the product.\u2019\u201d Id. (quoting Sutton v. Major Prods. Co., 372 S.E.2d 897, 898 (N.C.\n\n 4 App. 1988)).\n\n 5 By statute, North Carolina updated its governing products liability law in 1995, while still\n\n 6 adhering to Goodman\u2019s description of the relevant law and lists the actions that fall within the\n\n 7 topic of product liability to include:\n\n 8\n any action brought for or on account of personal injury, death or\n property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture,\n 9\n construction, design, formulation, development of standards,\n preparation, processing, assembly, testing, listing, certifying,\n10\n warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or\n labeling of any product.\n11\n\n12 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 99B-1(3).\n\n13 Plainly, as in many other States, North Carolina recognizes negligent manufacturing and\n\n14 testing among its causes of action that are distinct from warning, packaging, or labeling, by\n\n15 virtue of this definition. As such, North Carolina\u2019s negligence causes of action other than failure\n\n16 to warn do not implicate labeling and do not run afoul of FIFRA.\n\n17 6. Ohio\n\n18 In 1988, Ohio substituted a statutory scheme in place of common-law causes of action for\n\n19 products liability. The Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7\u00a7 2307.71\u20132307.80,\n\n20 \u201cabolishes common law product liability claims.\u201d Michelson v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 99\n\n21 N.E.3d 475, 482 (Ohio App. 2018); see also Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.71(B) (announcing legislative\n\n22 intent \u201cto abrogate all common law product liability claims or causes of action.\u201d).\n\n23\n 17 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 31 PageID\n #: 453900\n\n\n\n 1 Under Section 2307.74, a manufacturing defect claim can only succeed if there is a defect\n\n 2 in the product that existed when it left the manufacturer\u2019s hands and it proximately caused the\n\n 3 plaintiff\u2019s injuries. Sattelmyer v. Covidien, LLC, 2026-Ohio-1623, \u00b6 31, 2026 WL 1229719, at *7\n\n 4 (Ohio App. 2026). A product is still deemed defective \u201ceven though its manufacturer exercised all\n\n 5 possible care in its manufacture or construction.\u201d Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.74.\n\n 6 Negligent testing is expressly included within the statutory definition of a products liability\n\n 7 action and therefore is a cognizable cause of action under the statute. See id. \u00a7 2307.71(A)(13)(a).\n\n 8 Its remedy does not require a labeling change.\n\n 9\n B. Design-Defect Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and\n10 Are Not Preempted.\n\n11 1. Arizona\n\n12 Arizona imposes product liability when a product is sold \u201cin a defective condition\n\n13 unreasonably dangerous.\u201d Maywald, 591 P.3d at 889 (citation omitted). Its courts employ the\n\n14 consumer-expectation test \u201cwhen an ordinary consumer, based on experience, has formed\n\n15 expectations about how safely the product at issue will perform.\u201d Id. When that test does not apply,\n\n16 such as when the consumer has no basis to have safety expectations, courts \u201cinstead employ the\n\n17 risk/benefit analysis, which weighs the risks and benefits of the product as designed rather than\n\n18 comparing those risks and benefits to those of an alternative design. Id.\n\n19 Arizona recognizes design defect cases as distinct from failure-to-warn cases, as it has long\n\n20 recognized that the preemptive effect of FIFRA on labeling claims. Dillon v. Zeneca Corp., 42 P.3d\n\n21 598, 601 (Ariz. App. 2002), disapproved of on other grounds by Maywald, 591 P.3d at 891\u201392.\n\n22 For that reason, Durnell should have no impact on Arizona design-defect claims, which impose no\n\n23 requirement for labeling changes.\n 18 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 31 PageID\n #: 453901\n\n\n\n 1 2. Florida\n\n 2 Florida imposes design-defect liability when a product fails the consumer-expectations test,\n\n 3 \u201cwhich considers whether a product is unreasonably dangerous in design because it failed to\n\n 4 perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably\n\n 5 foreseeable manner.\u201d Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 503 (Fla. 2015). A\n\n 6 foundational principle of the test is that the \u201cmanufacturer plays a central role in establishing the\n\n 7 consumers\u2019 expectations for a particular product, which in turn motivates consumers to purchase\n\n 8 the product.\u201d Id.\n\n 9 In adhering to that test, Florida has rejected, inter alia, the \u201cpatent danger doctrine, which\n\n10 insulates manufacturers from liability if a dangerous product does not create a unknown risk to the\n\n11 user and is without any latent defect, as a total defense to strict liability claims involving defective\n\n12 products.\u201d Id. (quoting Auburn Mach. Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1979)).\n\n13 Under its standards, a plaintiff must show that the design \u201cmade the product unreasonably\n\n14 dangerous.\u201d Grieco v. Daiho Sangyo, Inc., 344 So. 3d 11, 18 (Fla. App. 2022). The \u201calleged design\n\n15 defect must also cause unforeseeable dangers during normal\u2014that is, intended\u2014use of the\n\n16 product.\u201d Id.\n\n17 The cause of action is utterly unrelated to labeling requirements and is not affected by\n\n18 Durnell. In fact, Florida has long held that that claims that amount to nothing more than\n\n19 \u201ca disguised labeling claim\u201d are preempted by FIFRA. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar\n\n20 S.A., 881 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. App. 2004). In that case, the court pierced a \u201cnegligent distribution\n\n21 claim\u201d to be, \u201cat its heart, a claim challenging the product\u2019s label and the failure to warn.\u201d Id. at 6.\n\n22 By recognizing that responsibility for more than two decades, it is clear that Florida\u2019s design-defect\n\n23 litigation is not similarly preempted.\n 19 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 31 PageID\n #: 453902\n\n\n\n 1 3. Georgia\n\n 2 Georgia has distinct jurisprudence on design defects that already recognizes FIFRA\u2019s\n\n 3 impact on labeling claims. To succeed in a design-defect case, the trier of fact must be convinced\n\n 4 that \u201cat the time the product was manufactured, an alternative design would have made the product\n\n 5 safer than the original design and was a marketable reality and technologically feasible.\u201d Banks,\n\n 6 450 S.E.2d at 674\u201375.\n\n 7 Importantly, in adopting that test, the Court rejected\n\n 8 the position that a manufacturer cannot be liable for injuries\n proximately caused by a product that functions for its intended use,\n 9 regardless of the risks associated with the product and its utility to\n the public or the plaintiff's ability to adduce evidence that a feasible\n10 alternative design, which could have prevented or minimized the\n plaintiff's injury, was available at the time the manufacturer made its\n11 design, manufacturing, and marketing decisions.\n\n12 Id. at 675.\n\n13 Banks authoritatively demonstrates that this design-defect cause of action is not preempted\n\n14 by FIFRA. Banks was a case about manufacturer liability for a rodenticide subject to FIFRA. Even\n\n15 while ordering a new trial on whether the rodenticide was defectively designed, the court affirmed\n\n16 a holding in the court of appeals that claims asserting that the product was inadequately or\n\n17 inaccurately labelled were preempted by FIFRA. Id. at 676. The decision thus anticipated and is\n\n18 in accord with Durnell, while establishing that a design-defect claim is not preempted as unrelated\n\n19 to any labeling allegation\n\n20 4. Mississippi\n\n21 In a Mississippi design-defect case, plaintiffs must prove the product \u201cwas designed in a\n\n22 defective manner,\u201d which rendered it \u201cunreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer\u201d and\n\n23 proximately caused the plaintiff\u2019s damages. 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So. 2d 151, 161 (Miss. 2005).\n 20 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 31 PageID\n #: 453903\n\n\n\n 1 In addition, the plaintiff must prove that, when the product left the manufacturer\u2019s control, the\n\n 2 manufacturer \u201cknew, or in light of reasonably available knowledge or in the exercise of reasonable\n\n 3 care should have known, about the danger that caused the damage,\u201d the \u201cproduct failed to function\n\n 4 as expected,\u201d and a feasible design alternative would have had a \u201creasonable probability [of]\n\n 5 prevent[ing] the harm without impairing the utility, usefulness, practicality or desirability of the\n\n 6 product to users or consumers.\u201d Miss. Code \u00a7 11-1-63(f).\n\n 7 Nothing in this cause of action implicates an EPA-approved label.\n\n 8 5. North Carolina\n\n 9 A North Carolina design-defect case requires a plaintiff to prove \u201cat the time of its\n\n10 manufacture the manufacturer acted unreasonably in designing or formulating the product,\u201d and\n\n11 this conduct was a proximate cause of the harm.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 99B-6(a). In addition, the\n\n12 plaintiff must either provide \u201cthe manufacturer unreasonably failed to adopt a safer, practical,\n\n13 feasible, and otherwise reasonable alternative design or formulation . . .without substantially\n\n14 impairing the usefulness, practicality, or desirability of the product,\u201d or that \u201cthe design or\n\n15 formulation of the product was so unreasonable that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant\n\n16 facts, would not use or consume a product of this design.\u201d Id. \u00a7 99B-6(a)(1)\u2013(2). The test is\n\n17 grounded in negligence, rather than strict liability. Smith, 261 S.E.2d at 248.\n\n18 For more than three decades, North Carolina courts have held \u201cFIFRA preempts state\n\n19 common-law tort claims based on inadequate labeling where such labeling is in compliance with\n\n20 FIFRA.\u201d Hopkins v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 432 S.E.2d 142, 146 (N.C. App. 1993). There is no overlap\n\n21 or implicit labeling requirement in North Carolina\u2019s design-defect causes of action.\n\n22\n\n23\n 21 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 28 of 31 PageID\n #: 453904\n\n\n\n 1 6. Ohio\n\n 2 As in many of its sister States, Ohio requires plaintiffs in design-defect case to show a\n\n 3 defect that was a direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff\u2019s injuries or losses. Donegal Mut. Ins.\n\n 4 v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 852 N.E.2d 215, 220 (Oh. App. 2006) (citation omitted). The\n\n 5 assessment considers foreseeable risks associated with the design or formulation \u201cincluding, but\n\n 6 not limited to,\u201d five factors: (1) the nature and magnitude of the risk of harm based on the design;\n\n 7 (2) the likely awareness of those harms by product users; (3) the foreseeability of the uses that\n\n 8 might cause the harm; (4) the product\u2019s conformity with applicable public or private product\n\n 9 standards; and (5) the \u201cextent to which that design or formulation is more dangerous than a\n\n10 reasonably prudent consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable\n\n11 manner.\u201d Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 2307.75(B).\n\n12 Of these factors, only the second has any conceivable overlap with warnings, which relates\n\n13 to the likely awareness of the consumer. For that factor, it is plausible that a warning about cancer,\n\n14 for example, might lessen the likelihood of liability, but it imposes no requirement that the label\n\n15 be adjusted. In fact, manufacturers can avoid liability without changing the label when the benefits\n\n16 outweigh the risk, id. \u00a7 2307.75(C), or when the complained-of design element is an \u201cinherent\n\n17 characteristic of the product which is a generic aspect of the product that cannot be eliminated\n\n18 without substantially compromising the product\u2019s usefulness or desirability.\u201d Id. \u00a7 2307.75(E).\n\n19 Thus, it cannot be said that a warning is required to avoid liability for a design defect in Ohio, nor\n\n20 can it be said that a remedy would require labeling changes.\n\n21 In the only case counsel found to address FIFRA and design-defect cases in Ohio, a federal\n\n22 district court held that plaintiffs in one case had pleaded design defect but nonetheless centrally\n\n23 alleged the product \u201cwas defective due to inadequate warning or instruction on the product or\n 22 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 29 of 31 PageID\n #: 453905\n\n\n\n 1 container.\u201d Smith v. Hartz Mountain Corp., No. 3:12-CV-00662, 2012 WL 5451726, at *3 (N.D.\n\n 2 Ohio Nov. 7, 2012) (citation omitted). Reasoning, consistent with Durnell\u2019s subsequent holding,\n\n 3 that \u201cFIFRA preempts only those claims that would impose a labeling requirement that is in\n\n 4 addition to or different from those required by FIFRA,\u201d it held the plaintiff\u2019s allegations\n\n 5 preempted. Id. To get there, the court examined the claims in detail to find a failure-to-warn claim\n\n 6 disguised as a design-defect claim. The analysis suggests that a true design-defect allegation would\n\n 7 survive preemption.\n\n 8\n C. Warranty Claims Do Not Require Additional or Different Labeling and Are\n 9 Not Preempted.\n\n10 Bates definitively explained why express warranty claims are not preempted by FIFRA. In\n\n11 the case before the Court, Dow had included its express warranty on the product\u2019s label. Bates,\n\n12 544 U.S. at 444 (footnote omitted). Yet its location did not render the warranty claim preempted\n\n13 because \u201ca cause of action on an express warranty asks only that a manufacturer make good on the\n\n14 contractual commitment that it voluntarily undertook by placing that warranty on its product.\u201d Id.\n\n15 at 444 (footnote omitted). The Court further reasoned that nothing requires a manufacturer to make\n\n16 an express warranty or \u201csay anything in particular in that warranty,\u201d so therefore \u201cthe rule does not\n\n17 impose a requirement \u2018for labeling or packaging.\u2019\u201d Id. at 445.\n\n18 Each of the subject States have adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),\n\n19 which situates warranty obligations within the framework of contracts for the sale of goods, so the\n\n20 language does not differ in any material respect between them. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 47-2313(1);\n\n21 Fla. Stat. \u00a7 672.313(1); Ga. Code \u00a7 11-2-313(1); Miss. Code \u00a7 75-2-313(1); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-\n\n22 2-313(a); Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1302.26(A). Each holds the warrantor to \u201c[a]ny affirmation of fact or\n\n23 promise made\u201d and presumes it becomes \u201cpart of the basis of the bargain,\u201d thereby requiring the\n 23 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 30 of 31 PageID\n #: 453906\n\n\n\n 1 goods to \u201cconform to that description.\u201d For transparent reasons, holding a manufacturer to its\n\n 2 promises does not require a change to the label in addition to or different from what was approved\n\n 3 for FIFRA as Bates explained. Still, to the extent that the warranty reflects what EPA has approved,\n\n 4 the action merely parallels FIFRA\u2019s requirements without deviation and is not preempted.\n\n 5 Each subject State has also adhered to the UCC\u2019s language with respect to implied\n\n 6 warranties, which impress upon a product requirements of merchantability and fitness for a\n\n 7 particular purpose and are also rooted in the contract of sale. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 47-2314(1);\n\n 8 Fla. Stat. \u00a7 672.314; Ga. Code \u00a7 11-2-314; Miss. Code \u00a7\u00a7 75-2-314 (implied warranty of\n\n 9 merchantability) and \u00a7 75-2-315 (implied warranty of fitness); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-2-314; Ohio\n\n10 Rev. Code \u00a7 1302.27. Ohio, however, seems to recognize an implied warranty in tort as a separate\n\n11 cause of action that does not require a contractual relationship. Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp.,\n\n12 218 N.E.2d 185, 194 (Ohio 1966). Under its law, it treats the sale of a product to assume a duty\n\n13 that the merchandise is \u201cof good and merchantable quality and fitness for intended use.\u201d Id. at 188.\n\n14 Still, recent caselaw refers to it as contract-based. See Rialto on Hurstbourne, LLC v. US LBM\n\n15 Operating Co. 3009, LLC, 2026-Ohio-1179, \u00b6 23, 2026 WL 898332, at *5 (Apr. 1, 2026).\n\n16 Regardless, the basic requirements are the same.\n\n17 All subject states subscribe to the standard definition of merchantability, the fundamental\n\n18 requirement of an implied warranty, which requires that the goods \u201care fit for the ordinary purposes\n\n19 for which such goods are used.\u201d 1 Hawkland UCC Series \u00a7 2-314:3; see also U.C.C. \u00a7 2-314(2)(c).\n\n20 That definition demonstrates that a cause of action over an implied warranty, no differently than\n\n21 one over an express warranty, does not implicate FIFRA preemption because it imposes no labeling\n\n22 requirement at all.\n\n23\n 24 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 22746 Filed 10/30/26 Page 31 of 31 PageID\n #: 453907\n\n\n\n 1 CONCLUSION\n\n 2 None of the States or causes of action in the Court\u2019s inquiry inherently transgresses\n\n 3 FIFRA\u2019s preemption standard because none imposes a requirement for labeling or packaging.\n\n 4 Instead, Bates continues to provide the most relevant guidance:\n\n 5 Rules that require manufacturers to design reasonably safe products,\n to use due care in conducting appropriate testing of their products,\n 6 to market products free of manufacturing defects, and to honor their\n express warranties or other contractual commitments plainly do not\n 7 qualify as requirements for \u201clabeling or packaging.\u201d\n\n 8 544 U.S. at 444.\n\n 9\n October 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n10\n /s/ Robert S. Peck\n11 Robert S. Peck*\n Counsel of Record\n12 Center for Constitutional Litigation, PC\n 6817 Vianda Court\n13 Carlsbad, CA 92009\n (202) 944-2874\n14 robert.peck@cclfirm.com\n\n15 N. John Bey\n President\n16 Jeffrey R. White\n Senior Associate General Counsel\n17 American Association for Justice\n 777 6th Street NW, #300\n18 Washington, DC 20001\n (202) 617-5620\n19 jeffrey.white@justice.org\n\n20 Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n 25 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE\n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION\n FOR JUSTICE ET AL.\n Case No. 16-md-2741-VC\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-04T07:12:12.546986-08:00","document_number":"22746","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027867401","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amicus Curiae Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T11:04:25.566628-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.509126-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"10:40:07","entry_number":22746,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":89897,"description":"Amicus Curiae Brief entered by Robert S. Peck on behalf of American Association for Justice. (Peck, Robert) (Filed on 10/30/2026) Modified on 10/30/2026 (exl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483556042/","id":483556042,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499374919/","id":499374919,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22745/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-29T15:32:32.051174-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-29T15:32:32.069176-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22745","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027863431","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-29T15:32:32.001661-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.484433-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-29","time_filed":"15:07:21","entry_number":22745,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":89894,"description":"NOTICE of Change of Address by Lori Erin Andrus (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Andrus, Lori) (Filed on 10/29/2026) (Entered: 10/29/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483103110/","id":483103110,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498904875/","id":498904875,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22743/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-27T15:33:21.532542-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-27T15:33:21.544600-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22743","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027851823","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Withdrawal of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-27T15:33:21.501134-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.350852-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-27","time_filed":"15:10:14","entry_number":22743,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":89890,"description":"Notice of Withdrawal of Motion FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMICUS BRIEFS (Greenwald, Robin) (Filed on 10/27/2026) (Entered: 10/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483102953/","id":483102953,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498904718/","id":498904718,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-27T15:33:13.203688-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-27T15:33:13.203702-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-27T15:33:13.190588-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-27T15:33:13.190602-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-27","time_filed":"15:20:29","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482807234/","id":482807234,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498601260/","id":498601260,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22742/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-26T11:03:04.892341-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.825415-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22742","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027843089","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-26T11:03:04.859577-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:56:30.149742-08:00","date_filed":"2026-10-26","time_filed":"10:44:00","entry_number":22742,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":89887,"description":"MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Monsanto Company. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Martinez, Anthony) (Filed on 10/26/2026) (Entered: 10/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482717916/","id":482717916,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498508184/","id":498508184,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22733/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.364627-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.863437-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22733","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.304968-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.317201-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22733,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel: Attorney Kathryn Miller Forgie substituted for Benjamin Gillig on behalf of Rivers Morrell, Elaine Recchion, Cathleen Taylen, Duane Wolterstorff, Carol Walovich (Forgie, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/22/2026) (Entered: 10/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482717915/","id":482717915,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498508183/","id":498508183,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22732/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.210348-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:32.975891-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22732","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.140672-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-25T08:04:22.150914-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22732,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-19.005","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER BY JUDGE VINCE CHHABRIA: The Court invites amicus briefs on the question of whether negligence, design defect, or express or implied warranty claims against Monsanto under Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, or Arizona law are preempted by federal law. Any amicus brief supporting either side must be filed on or before October 30. Any responses by the parties must be filed on or before November 5. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (crblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2026) (Entered: 10/19/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482717914/","id":482717914,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/5981306/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498508182/","id":498508182,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/5981306/22699/in-re-roundup-products-liability-litigation/","date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:21.159866-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-04T11:57:33.297000-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22699","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-25T08:04:21.120414-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-25T08:04:21.131673-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22699,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-06.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 22682 Administrative Motion to File an Omnibus Statement of Material Facts and an Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Monsanto's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment on the Scope of Durnell; finding as moot 22666 Administrative Motion. The omnibus brief, [22682-1], is deemed filed as of the date it was lodged with the Court. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (crblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2026) (Entered: 10/06/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=5981306&page_size=40"}