Defense Motion for Severance
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 9 24-CIV-08367 NICOLE BLOOM VS MONSANTO COMPANY
NICOLE BLOOM AIMEE H WAGSTAFF MONSANTO COMPANY ALICIA J DONAHUE
Defense Motion for Severance
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Monsanto Company, Bayer CropScience LP, and Hassett Hardware’s Motion to Sever is GRANTED as to plaintiff Nicole Bloom. It appears that only Bloom has claims against defendant Hassett Hardware. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall advise the court whether San Mateo County is the appropriate venue for the other plaintiffs’ trials, and if so, on what basis.
Although defendants’ Notice of Motion states that they “will, and hereby do, move this Court for an order severing each Plaintiff in this case into individual cases” (Notice of Mot., at p. 1:5-6; see also id., at p. 1:6-10), they have brought this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 379.5. That statute provides in full that “[w]hen parties have been joined under Section 378 or 379, the court may make such orders as may appear just to prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense, and may order separate trials or make such other order as the interests of justice may require.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 379.5.)
Defendants argue in their reply papers that the court should sever the cases and not just the trials. (Reply, at pp. 1-2, 3-5.) Indeed, they contend that Section 379.5 is “inapplicable.” (Id., at p. 3, heading II.) However, defendants have moved for relief only under Section 379.5. (Notice of Mot., at p. 1:9-10.) The “notice of a motion, . . ., must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125; Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1545.) Accordingly, the court is addressing only whether to order separate trials. The court makes no ruling as to whether severance of a matter into separate cases is an available remedy pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 378.
Plaintiffs allege that they each used a Roundup-branded product containing glyphosate; that defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions as to the use of that product; and that plaintiffs or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of their use of the Roundup-branded product.
Defendants argue that discovery has shown that of the eight or nine plaintiffs remaining, only Bloom has testified that her mother purchased a Roundup-branded product from defendant Hassett Hardware. (MPA, at p. 2; Donahue Decl., exh. 6.) Each of the other plaintiffs apparently
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ purchased Roundup-branded products at different times and from retailers other than Hassett Hardware, including outside California. (See id., exhs. 1-5, 7.) Although plaintiff Carole Walovich purchased Roundup in San Mateo County — she did not shop at Hassett Hardware. (MPA, at p. 7; Donahue Decl., exh. 3 [Walovich purchased Roundup products at Orchard Supply in Redwood City].)
Indeed, it appears that the only basis for venue in San Mateo County is Hassett Hardware’s location (Complaint, ¶ 48), notwithstanding that plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395, in that the subject injury occurred in Sacramento County.” (Id., ¶ 47; see also id., ¶ 50 [“Indeed, even Bayer Crop Science itself calls the Sacramento Area the “Global Headquarters of Crop Science.”].)
It appears that only Bloom has a basis for asserting claims against Hassett Hardware, which is grounds for severing her trial from the other plaintiffs’ trials. The risk that evidence would spill over from the other cases is substantial and would likely prejudice Hassett Hardware. The court therefore finds that ordering Bloom’s trial separated is warranted because, although the complaint provides no detail about the locations of purchases or the specific product each plaintiff purchased (see Complaint, ¶¶ 7-25), the plaintiffs’ allegations do not “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 378, subd. (a)(1).)
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendants’ counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.