Philadelphia, PA – The number of lawsuits against the makers of the herbicide paraquat in Philadelphia County has surged by 45% in the past six months, with the case total growing from approximately 500 earlier this year to 728 by early June. This uptick is occurring amid recent developments in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) which might be influencing the spike in filings.
Judge Joshua Roberts of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ Complex Litigation Center noted a consistent rise in cases. This increase is reportedly partly spurred by an April decision in the federal MDL overseen by U.S. District Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel of the Southern District of Illinois. Her ruling, impacting the strategy of plaintiff’s litigation, dismissed a significant expert’s testimony and four bellwether cases, pausing further trial scheduling.
The decision fueled concerns among plaintiffs’ attorneys, who are now possibly viewing Philadelphia’s fast-moving court docket as an advantageous alternative. With trial dates in Philadelphia approaching, plaintiffs’ lawyers are eager to push forward. Eric T. Chaffin, managing partner of Chaffin Luhana, mentioned, “There’s only so many cases that can be tried in one courthouse,” emphasizing the necessity to progress toward trial.
Philadelphia is not the only forum for paraquat-related claims. Besides the MDL, which is handling close to 5,700 cases, coordinated proceedings are also ongoing in California and Delaware state courts. The strategic filings across multiple jurisdictions reflect an orchestrated effort to leverage different courts’ timelines and procedural advantages.
The first of four bellwether trials in Philadelphia is slated for March 31, 2025. This rapid development led Chaffin’s firm and possibly others to file additional suits in Philadelphia to benefit from the comparatively swift proceedings. The Philadelphia mass tort thus becomes a critical battlefield in the broader legal fight against paraquat manufacturers.
The influx of new legal challenges against Syngenta Corp. and Chevron USA Inc. also reflects the maturation of claims, as asserted by participants indicating the growing readiness of more cases for filing. Tayjes Shah from The Miller Firm, involved early in the Philadelphia litigation, has noticed a broadening in the pool of firms participating in the lawsuits.
Both Chaffin and Shah believe that Rosenstengel’s April ruling, while procedural, mainly caused delays but did not substantially weaken plaintiffs’ claims. They also highlighted that the expert testimony expected in Philadelphia will feature significant differences from those in the MDL, suggesting a robust continuation of the litigation despite potential challenges to experts’ qualifications.
The Philadelphia court is preparing for preliminary discussions on objections to the cases proposed for bellwether trials. Daniel Lapinski, plaintiffs liaison counsel for the Philadelphia mass tort, indicated confidence in the experts they plan to present in the forthcoming trials.
As the litigation landscape evolves, the combination of strategic filings, expert preparations, and court scheduling suggests that plaintiffs are adapting adeptly to the shifting judicial environment. The aggressive push towards trial in Philadelphia, alongside efforts in other jurisdictions, underscores an overarching commitment to obtaining resolution and compensation for the alleged harms caused by paraquat exposure.