Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 05-29-2024
Case Style:
Scott Gilmore, et al. v. Monsanto Company
Case Number: 3:21-CV-0159
Judge: Vince Chhabria
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Not Available
Description:
San Francisco, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on product liability theories.
Plaintiffs and Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") reached a nationwide class settlement agreement resolving Plaintiffs' claims that Monsanto omitted information on the labeling of its "Roundup" products to warn about the products' alleged carcinogenic properties. Ryan Tomlinson and Carol Richardson ("Objectors") objected, alleging that the settlement process involved collusion and that the settlement would extinguish higher-value claims in their state class action in Missouri. The district court considered and rejected Objectors' concerns and granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and for certification of the nationwide class for purposes of settlement. Objectors appeal, contending that the district court: (1) abused its discretion in approving the class action settlement given warning signs of collusion; (2) abused its discretion in approving the class action settlement because the settlement extinguished higher-value claims in Objectors' Missouri action; and (3) erred by relying on the parties' use of a mediator.
Gilmore v. Tomlinson (In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.), 23-15611 (9th Cir. May 29, 2024)
* * *
"The settlement of a class action must be fair, adequate, and reasonsble." Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2)). "We review a district court's approval of a class action settlement for clear abuse of discretion." McKinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack, 16 F.4th 594, 606 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir. 2011)). Although the district court "must undertake a stringent review," our "review of the district court's reasoning is 'extremely limited.'" In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Pracs., &Prods. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 609 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). We "will affirm" if the district court "applies the proper legal standard and [its] findings of fact are not clearly erroneous." In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). A district court clearly errs only if its factual findings "are (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record." B.K. ex rel. Tinsley v. Snyder, 922 F.3d 957, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2019).
Gilmore v. Tomlinson (In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.), 23-15611 (9th Cir. May 29, 2024)
Outcome: Settled.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: