Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS—N.D. Ohio: Monsanto Roundup Liability Case Sent Back to Ohio State Court, (Jun 16, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Ohio residents successfully challenged removal to federal court by alleging wrongful death against a local hardware store, claiming supplier liability based on negligence and failure-to-conform under state law.

A products liability action involving the weed killer Roundup was remanded to state court where the maker of Roundup, Monsanto Company, a Delaware corporation, could not prove that the seller of the product was fraudulently joined. The federal district court in Ohio ruled that the claimants, Ohio residents, set forth a colorable claim for wrongful death against Dunn Hardware, LLC, the seller of the product. Because Dunn shares Ohio citizenship with the claimants, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction and was thus required to remand the action to the Ohio state court (Kanaga v. Monsanto Company, No. 1:25-cv-2786 (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2026)).

Background. From 1980 through 2015, the decedent worked in landscaping and regularly used the herbicide known as Roundup. Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide designed and produced by Monsanto Company, a Delaware corporation. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company marketed and distributed Monsanto’s Roundup products in Ohio, and Dunn Hardware, LLC advertised and sold Roundup products in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and ultimately sold the product to the decedent. Scotts and Dunn are Ohio companies.

The claimants consisted of the decedent’s wife individually and administrator of his estate, Ohio residents. They alleged that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, and unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. Specifically, the claimants alleged that exposure to Roundup increases the risk of developing cancer. Despite these risks, they alleged that the companies failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn them of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup. Unaware of Roundup’s harmful effects, the decedent used the product for years, leading to him developing lymphoma in 1984. Ultimately, he died on November 15, 2024.

Following the decedent’s death, the claimants filed suit against all three companies in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on December 9, 2025. The complaint asserts causes of action under Ohio law for negligence, strict products liability for design defect, strict products liability for failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, fraud, supplier liability, and wrongful death. On December 23, 2025, Monsanto removed the case to Ohio federal district court, arguing that, despite the claimants sharing Ohio residency with Scotts and Dunn, this court had diversity jurisdiction because Scotts and Dunn were fraudulently joined. The claimants moved to remand.

Fradulent joinder. Generally, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Fraudulent joinder is an exception to the requirement of complete diversity. To prove fraudulent joinder, the removing party must present sufficient evidence that a plaintiff could not have established a cause of action against the non-diverse defendants under state law. However, if there is a colorable basis for predicting that a plaintiff may recover against non-diverse defendants, the court must remand the action to state court.

Monsanto argued broadly that all claims against Scotts and Dunn lacked a colorable basis. But the claimants, rather than defending all claims as colorable, elected to solely argue that they have a colorable claim for wrongful death based on products liability against Dunn.

The single issue before the court was thus whether the claimants have a colorable claim for wrongful death based on products liability against Dunn. Monsanto attacked the wrongful death claim on two fronts: timeliness and substance.

Timeliness of wrongful death claim. Wrongful death claims have a two-year statute of limitations. Wrongful death claims involving product liability are additionally subject to a statute of repose, which bars claims brought later than ten years from the date that the product was delivered to its first purchaser. The statute of repose further contains a savings clause providing that, if the deceased’s death occurred less than two years before the expiration of the ten-year repose period, a wrongful death claim may be brought within two years of the death.

As applied here, the wrongful death claim is timely, the court found. Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the claimants, the decedent last purchased Roundup from Dunn in 2015. The repose period thus ran from 2015 to 2025. The decedent died on November 15, 2024, less than two years from the end of the repose period. Thus, the claimants had until November 15, 2026, to file their action. The present suit was filed on December 9, 2025. The wrongful death claim is thus not time-barred, the court held.

Substance of wrongful death claim. In Ohio, claims for wrongful death must be premised on a death caused by some conduct which would have entitled the deceased to a cause of action had they not died. In other words, a wrongful death claim must be predicated upon a separate tort. The claimants predicated their wrongful death claim on a claim for supplier liability under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A). Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A), a supplier can be liable on a theory of negligence under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A)(1) or a theory of failure-to-conform under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A)(2). The issue was whether the claimants set forth a colorable claim under one or both of these theories.

Under § 2307.78(A)(1), a supplier is liable if it was negligent and the negligence was a proximate cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages. A supplier can be liable for negligence if it knew or had reason to know of a product defect and failed to provide a warning of the defect. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to claimants, the court held that there was a colorable § 2307.78(A)(1) claim here. The claimants alleged that the companies, including Dunn, knew or should have known that: Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone; glyphosate is associated with an increased risk of developing cancer; Roundup created a high risk of unreasonable, dangerous side effects; and Roundup was in a defective condition and was and is inherently dangerous and unsafe.

The claimants alleged that the companies, including Dunn, failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn them of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup. Finally, the claimants alleged that the decedent purchased and was exposed to Roundup, resulting in his lymphoma and eventual death. According to the court, these allegations provide a colorable basis for predicting that the claimants may recover against Dunn.

Monsanto made three arguments, all of which the court found unavailing. First, Monsanto argued that the claimants’ allegations of knowledge were “too conclusory to be credited.” This argument is better presented on a motion to dismiss, not on a motion to remand, the court stated. Second, Monsanto presented a declaration from Dunn’s sole member stating that Dunn never knew or had the resources or expertise to discover any defects in Roundup. Monsanto argued that this declaration foreclosed the negligence theory. But one cannot foreclose the possibility of a colorable claim by merely refuting the complaint’s allegations via affidavit or declaration, the court said. Finally, Monsanto presented evidence that Dunn did not exist before 2012 and argued that, as a result, the claimants will be unable to prove that Dunn caused the decedent’s lymphoma in 1984. However, the court noted that the complaint indicated that the decedent might have purchased Roundup from Dunn as late as 2015. While Monsanto’s evidence may foreclose the possibility that Dunn caused the decedent’s lymphoma in 1984, said the court, it does not foreclose the possibility that Dunn contributed to the decedent’s death by selling him Roundup while failing to warn of a known risk between 2012 and 2015.

The claimants sufficiently establish that, had the decedent not died, he would have a colorable claim against Dunn under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A)(1), the court held. Resultantly, the claimants set forth a colorable basis for predicting that they may recover from non-diverse defendant Dunn on their wrongful death claim.

Moreover, said the court, under § 2307.78(A)(2), a supplier is liable if “[t]he product in question did not conform, when it left the control of the supplier in question, to a representation made by that supplier, and that representation and the failure to conform to it were a proximate cause of harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages.” The court held that the claimants set forth a colorable § 2307.78(A)(2) claim, viewing the record in the light most favorable to them. The wife’s affidavit suggested that Dunn made representations that “Roundup was a safe weedkiller,” and that the decedent purchased Roundup because of such representations. The complaint alleged that Roundup was not, in fact, a safe weedkiller because it increased the likelihood of developing cancer and that the decedent’s exposure to Roundup caused his lymphoma and eventual death. These averments and allegations provide a colorable basis for predicting that the claimants may recover from Dunn, the court said.

Again, Monsanto’s arguments to the contrary were found unavailing. First, Monsanto argued that the claimants failed to plead a failure-to-conform theory and that such failure “precludes its consideration.” However, the combination of the wife’s affidavit and the complaint present a colorable claim under § 2307.78(A)(2), the court said. Second, Monsanto argued that Dunn’s averment that it never made any representation regarding Roundup forecloses the possibility of a colorable claim under § 2307.78(A)(2). Considering the wife’s affidavit to the contrary, the record raised a disputed question of fact which the court was required to resolve in favor of the non-removing party.

The court held that the claimants sufficiently established that, had the decedent not died, he would have a colorable claim against Dunn under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.78(A)(2). Resultantly, the claimants set forth a colorable basis for predicting that they may recover from non-diverse defendant Dunn on their wrongful death claim.

Accordingly, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the claimants’ motion to remand to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas was granted.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-02786-SL.

Judge: Lioi, S.

Attorneys: William A. Carlin (Carlin & Carlin) for Darcie Kanaga. Rachel N. Byrnes (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough) for Monsanto Co. and Dunn Hardware, LLC.

Companies: Monsanto Co.; Dunn Hardware, LLC

MainStory: TopStory JurisdictionNews ChemicalNews OhioNews