Hann

Hann v. Monsanto Co.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 20223:20-cv-07213California277 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS MDL No. 2741

LIABILITY LITIGATION

Case No. 16-md-02741-VC

This document relates to: ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Hann v. Monsanto, 20-cv-7213 Re: Dkt. No.

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Monsanto because the plaintiff, Adrine Hann, has failed to disclose a specific causation expert. Hann alleges that Roundup caused her multiple myeloma. Her counsel concedes that expert testimony is required for the design defect claim. Dkt. No. 19 at 10. But her counsel nevertheless insists that summary judgment is not proper for her failure to warn, negligence, and breach of implied warranty because multiple myeloma is only caused by “environmental factors.” Id. Hann is “otherwise healthy” and has “no history of cancer in her family,” but she developed multiple myeloma at some point after she began using Roundup. Id. The Supreme Court of Michigan has not resolved the question whether expert causation testimony is always required in a toxic tort case. Lowery v. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, 898 N.W.2d 906, 918 (Mich. 2017) (Markman, C.J., concurring). But “the generally…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.