Plaintiff in Unsettled Roundup Case Says Claims are Timely; Argues ‘Widespread Law Firmly Contradicts Monsanto’s Position in this Case’



DOCUMENTS
  • Reply


SAN FRANCISCO –– Plaintiffs in an unsettled Roundup case under attack for questions of timeliness have filed a reply brief backing their claims, contending that the plaintiff could not be held responsible for knowing the connection between his injury and Roundup when the scientific community had not yet made the connection and Monsanto denied such connection existed.

In a Nov. 24 reply brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs claimed that their complaint was timely filed and “there are no issues of negligence or excusable neglect.”

In Pretrial Order No. 220, issued …






UPCOMING CONFERENCES




HarrisMartin’s Webinar Series: Acetaminophen ASD/ADHD Product Liability Litigation

October 21, 2022

MORE DETAILS



HarrisMartin's MDL Conference: Navigating Current Mass Tort Litigation

November 30, 2022 - New York, NY
The Knickerbocker

MORE DETAILS