Hardeman
Hardeman v. Monsanto Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Chhabria, J.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY
I.
Monsanto argues that Hardeman’s failure-to-warn claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden-ticide Act, which prohibits states from “imposing] ... any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” the requirements in FIFRA itself. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b). But Hardeman’s failure-to-warn claims based on Roundup’s labeling are not preempted, because “a state-law labeling requirement is not preempted by § 136v(b) if it is equivalent to, and fully consistent with, FIFRA’s mis- *1038 branding provisions.” Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 447 , 125 S.Ct. 1788 , 161 L.Ed.2d 687 (2005).
A.
To the extent Hardeman’s failure-to-warn claims attack Roundup’s product labeling, they are consistent with FIFRA. FIFRA requires a pesticide label to “contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied with ... is adequate to protect health and the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136 (q)(1)(G); see also 40 C.F.R. § 156.60 . California law, similarly, requires a manufacturer to warn either of any risk that is known or knowable (in strict liability), or at least those…