Philadelphia County Court
PHILADELPHIA – A Pennsylvania appellate court will decide if out-of-state plaintiffs should be able to sue in Philadelphia over an alleged link between the herbicide Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.
Earlier this month, the Superior Court granted permission for Syngenta Crop Protection and Chevron to appeal a July order denying a motion to dismiss that called Philadelphia’s court an inconvenient forum. Neither of the companies are headquartered in Pennsylvania, and none of the nine plaintiffs at issue live in the state.
There are more than 1,000 individuals suing over Paraquat, mostly from other states. The first trial in Philadelphia’s Complex Litigation Center was canceled this week thanks to a settlement, after some wrangling over which case would be heard.
A victory in the state’s appeals courts would help Chevron and Syngenta rid themselves of many of the claims in Pennsylvania and could help other companies facing thousands of out-of-state claims in Philadelphia’s Complex Litigation Center, which also has programs for the weedkiller Roundup, the heartburn medicine Zantac and Johnson & Johnson’s allegedly asbestos-containing Baby Powder.
State appellate courts already rejected the idea that Pennsylvania’s “consent-by-registration” law - which holds that when a company does business in the state, it consents to be sued there – violates that Dormant Commerce Clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear that appeal, too. Its Mallory decision in 2023 affirmed the consent-by-registration law.
The new appeal concerns the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens and will decide if the plaintiffs should have filed in their home states.
“Here, it is undisputed that the nine Plaintiffs/Respondents: have never lived or worked in Pennsylvania; do not allege paraquat exposure or any other injurious conduct in Pennsylvania; and did not receive treatment for their injuries in Pennsylvania,” the Superior Court wrote.
“Moreover, there are no witnesses, documents or other evidence specific to their claims located in Pennsylvania. Finally, other states’ substantive law would likely govern their claims.”
It is Philadelphia’s pro-plaintiff reputation that attracts lawyers to the city. Juries there sometimes welcome the chance to hammer corporate defendants. For example, a jury hearing claims Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma awarded $2.2 billion (later reduced), and another jury gave $725 million in a case against Exxon Mobil over alleged benzene exposure.
Juries in Pennsylvania gave out the third-most of any state in 2024 - $3.4 billion - said a study by Marathon Strategies.
Two previous rulings could be key to Syngenta and Chevron’s appeal. In 2019, the Superior Court tossed the lawsuit of a South Carolina man who sued CSX and Consolidated Rail Corporation. His injuries occurred in New York.
The Superior Court found out-of-state plaintiffs are entitled to lesser deference regarding where they choose to sue if “the plaintiff’s residence and place of injury are located somewhere else.”
A 2024 decision from the same court said Crothall Healthcare’s Pennsylvania headquarters was not a strong enough reason to sue in the state when the medical equipment at the heart of the case was not designed, made, marketed or sold in Pennsylvania and the injuries occurred out-of-state.
Lawyers at The Miller Firm, Motley Rice and Wagstaff Law Firm are lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
