Roundup Class Action Settlement Information

Groundbreaking Class Action Settlement Involving Roundup Users

Court papers filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Round Up MDL No. 2741), evidence the recent proposed settlement agreement between Monsanto and Round Up users.  The settlement was the culmination of intense settlement discussions between class counsel and Monsanto representatives resulting in a precedent setting proposal to resolve the issue of whether exposure to Round Up is a “cause” of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The class action case, entitled Ramirez v. Monsanto, was filed in the spring of 2019 in the Northern District of California (click here for copy of lawsuit) by Attorney William M. Audet of Audet & Partners, LLP. (click here for copy of Bio). After the filing of the Ramirez case, Attorney Audet was joined by high profile attorneys from the law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and The Dugan Law firm, as well as professor and constitutional scholar Samuel Issacharoff as part of the Plaintiffs’ Counsel ‘Dream Team’ (click here for copy of the Amended Complaint).  The settlement negotiations were supervised by Kenneth Feinberg, the Court appointed Settlement Master. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are subject to approval by the Honorable Judge Vince Chhabria.  The terms of the settlement are summarized below:

  1. This is a class action settlement. It is designed to resolve the common question of “general causation”: whether Roundup can cause Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (“NHL”) in humans, and at what levels of exposure, on behalf of a class of persons exposed to Roundup who are not currently plaintiffs or who have not initiated any efforts at litigation.
  2. The key feature of this settlement is the provision of meaningful benefits to the class in exchange for a four-year standstill on new litigation during which time there will be binding review by an independent Science Panel.
  3. The class is defined as all individuals who have been exposed to Roundup and who have not initiated a personal injury suit or retained counsel for such an individual personal injury suit or retained counsel for such a suit. The settlement is not intended to disrupt, stay, or preempt any ongoing litigation, or to stand between attorney and client in any current retained agreement.
  4. During the standstill period, class members will not initiate any new litigation. During that four-year period, the Science Panel may evaluate all peer-reviewed, publicly accredited scientific studies. At the conclusion of its work, it will render a decision on the relation between Roundup products and NHL, if any.
  5. This will be an opt out class. Notice and an opt out period will be ensured.
  6. The decision of the Science Panel will be binding on all future claims. This will be issue preclusion, meaning that the results will be admissible against both Monsanto and class members in any Roundup litigation that goes forward at the conclusion of the four-year standstill.
  7. At the end of the four-year period, class members are released into the tort system to pursue compensatory damages claims. They are bound by the issue preclusive conclusions of the Science Panel. They also waive their claims for punitive damages and any claims for medical monitoring once back in the tort system.
  8. In exchange, Monsanto will pay $1.1 billion plus attorneys’ fees and costs (in amount not to exceed $150 million). The $1.1 billion will cover the costs of administration of the remedies that follow:
    1. A research fund on NHL diagnosis and treatment.
    2. A diagnostic accessibility program that will provide resources for diagnosis and referral to treatment for the most at-risk and medically underserved population. One target group is primarily farm, agricultural, and landscape workers who are likely migrants, uninsured, etc.
    3. An interim assistance fund that will provide payments to class members for impact on a need basis during the four-year period.
  9. The Parties have filed a motion for preliminary approval with the Court. If the Court grants that motion, which the Parties hope will be heard in late July, an extensive notice plan to communicate with potential class members will be disseminated. A final fairness hearing will then be set for approximately 150 days after notice goes out at which time the Court will hear arguments concerning the Parties’ motion for final approval of the settlement and class counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
  10. The details of the settlement and the process for seeking approval of the settlement are contained in the public filings dated June 24, 2020 (see below for access to certain settlement documents).

One of the members of the Plaintiffs’ negotiation team, attorney Elizabeth J. Cabraser noted, “We are pleased to have reached this proposed class settlement, after nearly one year of negotiations supervised by court- appointed mediator Kenneth Feinberg, to begin the court approval and class notice process, to bring much needed medical services and financial assistance to class members, while a science panel deliberates and determines the issue of general causation.”

Class Counsel:

Audet & Partners, LLP:
William M. Audet (click here for bio)
Audet & Partners, LLP
San Francisco, California
www.audetlaw.com

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser (SF)
415 956-1000
ecabraser@lchb.com

Steven E. Fineman (NY)
212 355-9500
sfineman@lchb.com

The Dugan Law Firm:
James R. Dugan, II
504 648-0180
jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

Professor (NYU):
Professor Samuel Issacharoff
Issacharoff@mercury.law.nyu.edu