The Bayer Ruveon Restructuring and Your Roundup Cancer Rights
If you used Roundup and later heard the words “non-Hodgkin lymphoma” from a doctor, the news that Bayer is reorganizing its glyphosate business into a new subsidiary called Ruveon LLC probably caught your eye — and you may be wondering whether it changes anything about your right to hold the company accountable for what happened to you. The short answer is: it does not. The lawsuits over Roundup and cancer are a completely separate legal track from the trade petitions and corporate restructuring you may have read about, and your claim — if you have one — runs against the same entity it always has.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We built this page because when a company as large as Bayer reshuffles its business structure, the people who were hurt by its products get confused, and confusion is what the other side counts on. So we are going to tell you exactly what the Ruveon restructuring is, what it is not, what the Roundup cancer litigation looks like right now, and what it means for you if you were exposed to glyphosate and diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is legal information, not legal advice — but it is the kind of information that most people only get after they have already made a mistake that cost them their case.
What Bayer’s Ruveon Consolidation Actually Means
In early July 2026, Bayer announced that its U.S. glyphosate business — the Roundup operation it inherited when it acquired Monsanto in 2018 — would be consolidated into a subsidiary called Ruveon LLC, based in St. Louis, Missouri. The company said Ruveon would handle “all aspects of U.S. glyphosate, pricing, go-to-market strategies, production and logistics” and would be “solely responsible for the U.S. glyphosate business.” Ruveon remains a Bayer Group company — it is not a spinoff or a sale. It is an internal reorganization.
This kind of restructuring is common in corporate America. Companies consolidate divisions into named subsidiaries for tax efficiency, marketing focus, or regulatory strategy. What it does not do is move the legal liability for past conduct. When Bayer acquired Monsanto, it acquired Monsanto’s legal exposure — including tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn users about that risk. A restructuring of the glyphosate business unit does not erase, transfer, or wall off that liability. The defendant in a Roundup cancer lawsuit is still Monsanto Company, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG. Ruveon is a business unit, not a liability shield.
If you have a potential claim, the question is not “who is Ruveon” — it is “did Monsanto know, or should it have known, that glyphosate could cause cancer, and did it warn you?” That question is unchanged by the restructuring.
The Countervailing Duty Petitions: Trade Policy, Not Tort Law
One day before announcing the Ruveon consolidation, Bayer filed a 180-page petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission under the antidumping and countervailing duty provisions of U.S. trade law. The petition alleges that glyphosate produced in China is being sold in the United States at less than fair-market value — “dumped” — and that Chinese producers benefit from government subsidies that let them undercut domestic manufacturers. Bayer asked for duties ranging from roughly 69% to over 446% on imported Chinese glyphosate.
Major agricultural organizations, including the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association, publicly criticized the petitions. The concern from farmers is economic: if duties are imposed, the cost of a critical herbicide could rise, and availability could tighten. Ruveon, which identifies itself as the only domestic producer of glyphosate, wrote an open letter to producers saying the petitions are “about preserving long-term access to a critical input” and “creating a level playing field.”
“What we are seeing is an increasing trend of companies abusing trade remedy laws to box out competition and corner more of the U.S. market, at great expense to their customers — the American farmer.”
That statement, from a national agricultural trade association, reflects a policy dispute about market competition and input costs. It is important to understand: this trade fight has nothing to do with the cancer litigation. The CVD petitions are about import pricing. The Roundup lawsuits are about whether glyphosate causes cancer and whether the company warned users. They are two completely separate legal universes that happen to involve the same chemical and the same parent company. Do not confuse one for the other — and do not let anyone tell you that a trade petition or a corporate restructuring changes the legal landscape for personal-injury claims. It does not.
The Roundup Cancer Litigation Is Still Active
While Bayer reorganizes its business and files trade petitions, the Roundup cancer litigation continues in federal and state courts across the country. The federal cases are consolidated in a multidistrict litigation — MDL No. 2741, titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation — before Judge Vince Chhabria in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As of mid-2026, approximately 3,909 actions were pending in the MDL, with a total of roughly 5,295 actions filed. Those numbers move monthly as new cases are filed and others are resolved.
Every one of those cases makes the same core allegation: that Monsanto Company, now a Bayer subsidiary, designed, marketed, and sold Roundup knowing or having reason to know that its active ingredient, glyphosate, was associated with an elevated risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that it failed to adequately warn users of that risk. The plaintiffs are people who used Roundup — farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, home gardeners, agricultural workers — and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.
The MDL is not a class action. Each plaintiff retains an individual case. The consolidation simply means that pretrial proceedings — discovery, motion practice, expert challenges — are handled together in one court for efficiency. When the pretrial phase is complete, individual cases are sent back to the courts where they were originally filed for trial, unless they settle first.
The results so far have been mixed. Some plaintiffs have won significant jury verdicts. Some of those verdicts were later reduced on appeal. Some were reversed. The record is not a clean sweep in either direction, and anyone who tells you these cases are guaranteed winners — or guaranteed losers — is not being honest with you. What is true is that the litigation is very much alive, that thousands of cases remain pending, and that the right to bring a claim still exists.
The Supreme Court Fight That Could Reshape Every Roundup Case
There is a case before the United States Supreme Court right now that could determine the future of every Roundup cancer lawsuit in the country — and you need to know about it.
The case is Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068. The Supreme Court granted review on January 16, 2026, and heard oral argument on April 27, 2026. A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term. The question at the center of the case is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticate Act — the federal law that governs pesticide labeling — expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA did not require a cancer warning on the Roundup label.
Here is what that means in plain English. Bayer’s primary defense in the Roundup litigation is not that glyphosate is safe. It is that the EPA approved the Roundup label without requiring a cancer warning, and that federal law says states cannot impose labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” what FIFRA requires. If the Supreme Court agrees with Bayer, it could become extremely difficult — or impossible — to sue Monsanto for failing to warn about cancer risk, because the argument would be that the company was legally prohibited from adding a warning the EPA did not require.
If the Supreme Court rules against Bayer, the litigation continues on its current path. If the Court rules for Bayer, the landscape changes dramatically, and many pending claims could face dismissal on preemption grounds. This is why timing matters. If you have a potential claim, the safest course is to have it evaluated before the Court rules — not because your case will disappear if you wait, but because the legal terrain after the decision may be harder to cross, and a lawyer needs time to position your case properly regardless of how the Court decides.
We are not predicting the outcome. We are telling you it is pending, it matters, and the clock is real. If you are sitting on a potential claim and waiting to see what happens, understand that the Supreme Court’s decision could change the rules of the game while you are still on the bench.
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Injury Behind the Roundup Litigation
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of lymph nodes, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow that is part of the immune defense. It arises when white blood cells called lymphocytes develop mutations that cause them to grow uncontrollably. There are many subtypes of NHL, and the disease ranges from slow-growing (indolent) to aggressive, each with different treatment protocols and prognoses.
The connection to glyphosate in the litigation is this: plaintiffs allege that repeated, sustained exposure to glyphosate — through mixing, loading, spraying, and handling Roundup over months or years — is associated with an elevated risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” — its Group 2A category, reserved for agents where there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in animals. That classification is not a regulatory ban, and it is not a court finding that any individual’s cancer was caused by glyphosate. It is a scientific hazard assessment, and it is one of the central pieces of evidence in the litigation.
The EPA has taken a different position, stating that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” That disagreement between the IARC and the EPA is part of what makes these cases contested — the defense points to the EPA’s position; plaintiffs point to the IARC’s. A jury decides which evidence it credits.
The diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically involves a lymph node biopsy, blood tests, imaging (CT or PET scans), and bone marrow evaluation. If you have been diagnosed, your medical records already contain the diagnostic foundation of a potential claim. The questions that follow are about exposure: how long did you use Roundup, how often, in what quantities, and through what route — spraying, mixing, skin contact, inhalation.
The latency period for NHL — the time between exposure and diagnosis — can be years. This matters for two reasons. First, it means people may be diagnosed long after they stopped using the product. Second, it means the deadline to file a lawsuit may not start running from the date of exposure but from the date you knew or should have known that your cancer was connected to glyphosate. That principle — called the discovery rule — is one of the most important protections for people in toxic exposure cases, and we discuss it in detail below.
Who Qualifies for a Roundup Cancer Claim
Not everyone who used Roundup and later got sick has a viable lawsuit. The elements that matter are specific, and an honest evaluation of your case starts with them.
Exposure history. You need to show that you used Roundup or a glyphosate-based herbicide, and that your exposure was significant enough to plausibly connect to your disease. This typically means repeated use over a period of months or years — not a single weekend of yard work. Farmers, agricultural workers, professional landscapers, groundskeepers, and nursery workers are the most common plaintiffs, but regular homeowners who used Roundup extensively over many years have also brought claims. The key is documentation: what product did you use, how often, for how many years, and in what quantities.
Diagnosis. You need a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The litigation is specifically tied to NHL — not to other cancers, not to general illness, not to skin irritation. If your diagnosis is something else, this is not your case. Your pathology report, biopsy results, and treatment records are the proof.
Causation. This is the hardest element and the one the defense fights hardest. You need to show that your glyphosate exposure more likely than not contributed to your cancer. This does not require proving that glyphosate was the only cause — NHL has many risk factors, including age, immune suppression, certain infections, and family history. But you need evidence that your exposure was substantial enough to have been a contributing cause. This is where dose reconstruction — building a record of how much glyphosate you handled over how long — becomes critical.
Timeliness. You need to be within the statute of limitations. In most states, the personal-injury deadline runs between two and four years, but the discovery rule may mean the clock does not start until you knew or should have known of the connection between your cancer and Roundup. This is state-specific, and getting it wrong can end your case before it begins.
If you check all four boxes — real exposure, confirmed NHL, a plausible causal connection, and you are within the deadline — you may have a case worth evaluating. If any one of them is missing, you need an honest lawyer to tell you that, not one who tells you what you want to hear.
The Evidence That Builds a Glyphosate Exposure Case
The proof in a Roundup cancer case is different from the proof in a car crash. There is no skid mark to photograph, no dashcam to download. The evidence is documentary — a paper trail that reconstructs your exposure over years and ties it to your diagnosis. Here is what matters and where it lives.
Purchase records. Receipts, credit card statements, store loyalty records, and agricultural-supply invoices that show you bought Roundup or glyphosate products. If you bought it by the case for a farming operation, your supplier may have records going back years. If you bought it at a hardware store for home use, your credit card history is the trail. Gather what you can — and do not assume old receipts are useless. Even a partial record is better than none.
Employment and work records. If you used Roundup as part of your job — on a farm, at a golf course, for a landscaping company, at a nursery — your employment history documents the context. Pay stubs, W-2s, job descriptions, and co-worker testimony can establish that you handled glyphosate as a regular part of your work. Workers’ compensation records, if you were injured on the job in any capacity, may also contain useful exposure information.
Medical records. Your biopsy report, pathology results, treatment records, oncologist notes, and imaging studies are the proof of your injury. The date of diagnosis is critical — it is often the start of your statute-of-limitations clock under the discovery rule. Make sure you have the full diagnostic file, not just a summary letter from your doctor.
Product identification. You need to identify the specific product or products you used. “Roundup” is the brand name, but glyphosate is sold under many labels and in many concentrations. The product name, the concentration, and the formulation (liquid concentrate, ready-to-use, granular) all matter. Old product containers, labels, or photographs of the products you used are valuable evidence.
How fast this evidence disappears. Purchase records age out of retailer systems. Old employers go out of business and destroy files. Medical records can be purged on retention schedules that vary by provider and state. And memory fades — the longer you wait to document your exposure, the harder it becomes to reconstruct it accurately. This is why the first step after diagnosis is not waiting — it is gathering. A toxic tort claim lawyer can help you identify what to collect and send preservation demands to any third party that holds records of your exposure.
What the Defense Will Try to Do to Your Case
Bayer and Monsanto do not concede Roundup cases. They are represented by some of the most sophisticated defense firms in the country, and they have a playbook refined across thousands of cases. Here are the moves you should expect — and how each one is answered.
Play 1: “Your cancer came from something else.” Non-Hodgkin lymphoma has many known risk factors — age, immune conditions, certain viral infections, family history, and other chemical exposures. The defense will argue that your NHL was caused by one of these, not by glyphosate. The answer is dose reconstruction: a careful, documented record of your exposure that shows it was substantial and sustained enough to be a contributing cause. You do not have to prove glyphosate was the only cause. In most states, you have to prove it was a cause — that it more likely than not contributed to your disease.
Play 2: “You did not use enough for long enough.” The defense will try to minimize your exposure — arguing you used Roundup occasionally, in small amounts, for a short time. The answer is your exposure history: employment records, purchase records, and co-worker or family testimony that establishes the frequency, duration, and intensity of your use. A person who sprayed Roundup five days a week for fifteen years has a different exposure profile than someone who used it twice a year on dandelions, and the evidence needs to reflect that difference.
Play 3: “You are too late.” The defense will argue the statute of limitations has expired. The answer is the discovery rule: in most states, the clock does not start when you were exposed — it starts when you knew or should have known that your cancer was connected to glyphosate. If you were diagnosed with NHL in 2022 but did not learn about the possible Roundup connection until 2025, your clock may have started in 2025, not 2022. This is state-specific and fact-dependent, and it is one of the most important reasons to get a lawyer involved early — the difference between timely and late can turn on facts only a trained attorney can evaluate.
Play 4: “Federal law blocks your claim.” This is the FIFRA preemption defense — the same argument now before the Supreme Court in Monsanto v. Durnell. Bayer argues that because the EPA approved the Roundup label without requiring a cancer warning, state law cannot impose a different warning duty. If the Supreme Court adopts this argument, it could bar failure-to-warn claims in many jurisdictions. The answer, for now, is that preemption has not been decided — the case is pending — and in several state courts, plaintiff verdicts have survived preemption challenges. But this is a moving target, and it underscores why timing matters.
Play 5: “You already settled.” Bayer has offered various settlement programs over the years — some individual, some class-action-style. If you previously participated in any Roundup settlement, the defense will argue you released your claims. The answer depends on what you signed, what the release covered, and whether it was valid. Never assume a past settlement bars a future claim without having a lawyer read the actual release document.
What a Roundup Cancer Case Is Worth
We are not going to give you a dollar figure and call it a prediction. Any lawyer who does that before reviewing your medical records, your exposure history, and the applicable state law is not giving you advice — they are giving you a sales pitch.
What we can tell you is how a case is valued, honestly and structurally.
The damages in a Roundup cancer case fall into several categories. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses — chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, stem cell transplants, ongoing monitoring, and treatment of complications. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some patients require lifelong surveillance. Economic damages also include lost wages and lost earning capacity — the income you lost during treatment and the income you will never earn because of the disease or its aftereffects.
Non-economic damages include pain and suffering — the physical pain of the disease and its treatment, the psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis, the loss of enjoyment of life, and the fear of recurrence. In serious cases, these damages can be substantial. Some states cap non-economic damages; many do not. The cap question is state-specific and can change with legislation or court rulings.
Punitive damages may be available in some jurisdictions where the plaintiff can show that the defendant acted with knowledge of the risk and a conscious disregard for user safety. In the Roundup litigation, plaintiffs have argued that Monsanto knew about the cancer risk for years — citing internal emails, scientific studies, and regulatory communications — and chose not to warn. Whether punitive damages are available, and in what amount, depends on state law and the specific evidence in your case.
Jury verdicts in Roundup cases have ranged widely. Some plaintiffs have received awards in the tens of millions of dollars. Some of those awards were reduced on appeal. Some were reversed entirely. Settlement amounts, where they have occurred, are generally confidential. The honest framing is this: the value of your case depends on the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your illness, the jurisdiction where you file, the state’s damage rules, and the outcome of the pending Supreme Court preemption case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
If you lost a family member to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and believe Roundup exposure was a cause, a wrongful death claim lawyer can evaluate whether a survival or wrongful-death action is viable under your state’s law. Wrongful-death damages typically include lost financial support, lost companionship, and the emotional impact on surviving family members — but the beneficiary classes and damage elements vary significantly by state.
Your First Steps After a Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Diagnosis
If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and you have a history of Roundup or glyphosate use, here is what we recommend — not as a prediction about your case, but as the steps that protect your rights while you decide whether to move forward.
Step 1: Get your medical records in order. Request your complete diagnostic file — the pathology report, biopsy results, imaging, treatment notes, and oncologist records. These are the foundation of any potential claim. You have a legal right to your own medical records under HIPAA, and most providers can fulfill a records request within 30 days.
Step 2: Write down your exposure history. While your memory is fresh, write down every job, every property, every season where you used Roundup or a glyphosate herbicide. Include the product name if you remember it, the frequency of use, the years of use, and whether you mixed concentrates or used ready-to-use formulations. This document becomes the backbone of your exposure proof. Do not wait — memory degrades, and the details that matter most are the ones most likely to fade.
Step 3: Gather purchase and employment records. Dig out old receipts, credit card statements, tax returns, and employment records that place you in contexts where Roundup was used. If you worked in agriculture, landscaping, or grounds maintenance, your work history is part of your exposure story.
Step 4: Check the deadline in your state. The statute of limitations is a hard deadline — miss it and your case is gone, no matter how strong it is. Most states give you between two and four years to file a personal-injury lawsuit, but the discovery rule may mean the clock starts later than you think. You need a lawyer to evaluate the specific deadline for your state and your facts.
Step 5: Do not sign anything from Bayer, Monsanto, or any claims administrator. If you receive a settlement offer, a release, or any document asking you to give up rights in exchange for payment, do not sign it without having a lawyer read it first. Some of these offers are designed to close out your claim for a fraction of what it may be worth.
Step 6: Call a lawyer. The consultation is free. The evaluation is confidential. And the lawyer will tell you honestly whether you have a case — or whether you do not. Contact us at 1-888-ATTY-911 and we will talk through your situation in English or in Spanish.
The Deadline to File: The Discovery Rule and Your State’s Clock
The statute of limitations in a toxic exposure case is not a simple countdown from the date you were exposed. It is governed by the discovery rule — a legal principle that, in most states, starts the clock not when you were exposed to the harmful substance, but when you knew or should have known that your injury was caused by that exposure.
Here is how that works in practice. If you used Roundup from 2005 to 2015 and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020, the question is not “how long has it been since 2005?” — it is “when did you first know, or when should you reasonably have known, that your cancer might be connected to Roundup?” If you only learned about the possible connection in 2024 — perhaps from a news report, a lawyer’s advertisement, or a conversation with your oncologist — then in many states, your clock may have started in 2024, not in 2005 or 2020.
This rule exists because toxic exposure diseases are latent — they take years or decades to develop, and the connection between exposure and disease is not always obvious to the person affected. It would be fundamentally unfair to start the clock at the time of exposure, when the injured person had no way of knowing they were being harmed.
But the discovery rule is not unlimited. Some states impose an outer deadline — called a statute of repose — that can cut off a claim after a fixed number of years regardless of when the injury was discovered. The exact rule varies by state. Some states have two-year limitations periods. Some have three. Some have four or more. Some apply the discovery rule generously; others apply it narrowly. This is why we cannot give you a single number that applies everywhere — and why we will not try.
What we can tell you is this: if you think you may have a claim, the only safe assumption is that the clock is running. Find out the specific deadline for your state and your facts before it passes. Once a statute of limitations expires, no lawyer, no evidence, and no amount of injustice can bring the case back.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Bayer’s Ruveon restructuring change who I sue for a Roundup cancer claim?
No. The defendant in a Roundup cancer lawsuit is Monsanto Company, the Bayer subsidiary that designed, manufactured, and sold Roundup. Ruveon LLC is a business unit within the Bayer Group that handles U.S. glyphosate commercial operations. A corporate restructuring of a business division does not transfer or eliminate the legal liability for past conduct. Your claim, if you have one, is against the same entity it has always been against.
Is it too late to file a Roundup lawsuit?
That depends on your state’s statute of limitations and when you knew or should have known about the connection between your cancer and Roundup. The discovery rule, which applies in most states, may start the clock from the date you learned of the connection rather than the date of exposure. Some states also have statutes of repose that impose an outer deadline. You need a lawyer to evaluate the specific deadline for your state — and you should not wait to find out, because a missed deadline is permanent.
What is the Monsanto v. Durnell Supreme Court case?
Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that asks whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — the federal pesticide-labeling law — expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA approved the Roundup label without requiring a cancer warning. The Court heard oral argument on April 27, 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of the term. If the Court rules for Bayer, it could become much harder to bring failure-to-warn claims in many jurisdictions. If the Court rules against Bayer, the litigation continues on its current path. The case is pending — no outcome has been decided.
What kind of cancer is covered by the Roundup litigation?
The Roundup litigation centers on non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer of the lymphatic system. This is the injury that has been at the core of the MDL and the bellwether trials. If you were diagnosed with a different type of cancer, the Roundup litigation may not apply to your situation. An honest evaluation of your case starts with confirming your specific diagnosis.
How much Roundup exposure do I need to have a case?
There is no single threshold — but the litigation generally involves people who used Roundup repeatedly over a period of months or years. Agricultural workers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and farmers who handled glyphosate concentrates regularly are the most common plaintiffs. Home gardeners who used Roundup extensively over many years have also brought claims. A single exposure or occasional light use is unlikely to support a claim. The strength of your case depends on the documented frequency, duration, and intensity of your exposure.
What if a family member died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup?
You may have a wrongful-death or survival claim, depending on your state’s law and your relationship to the deceased. Wrongful-death statutes define who may bring a claim — typically a spouse, children, or parents — and what damages are recoverable. Survival actions allow the estate to pursue the claim the deceased person would have had. The deadline for these claims is also governed by state-specific statutes of limitations, which may differ from the personal-injury deadline. If you lost a family member, do not assume it is too late — ask.
Did the IARC classify glyphosate as a carcinogen?
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the WHO’s cancer-research arm — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” placing it in Group 2A. That category is for agents with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in animals. The classification is a scientific hazard assessment, not a regulatory ban or a court finding that any individual’s cancer was caused by glyphosate. The EPA has taken a different position, concluding that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This disagreement is part of what makes the litigation contested — and it is why each case is evaluated on its own evidence.
How much does it cost to talk to a lawyer about a Roundup claim?
Nothing. The consultation is free. We work on contingency — meaning we do not get paid unless we win your case. If there is no recovery, you owe us no fee. The specific contingency percentage depends on whether the case resolves before or after trial, and we will explain the exact terms before you agree to anything. You can learn how contingency fees work or call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 to talk it through directly.
What if I already settled a Roundup claim with Bayer?
If you previously participated in any Roundup settlement program and signed a release, your ability to bring a new claim may be limited or barred — but that depends entirely on what the release says, what claims it covered, and whether it is legally enforceable. Never assume a past settlement is the end of the story without having a lawyer read the actual document. Conversely, if you received a settlement offer and have not signed anything, do not sign it without legal review.
Why People Call Attorney911
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are based in Houston, Texas, and we take cases across the country in mass tort litigation, working with local counsel where required. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has been licensed and practicing law for over 27 years, including in federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he was trained to find facts, not to paper over them. He leads our trial team and sets the standard for how every case is evaluated: honestly, specifically, and with the evidence in hand.
Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, came to this firm after years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims like yours are priced, devalued, and denied. He sat across the table from injured people and helped decide what their cases were worth from the insurance company’s perspective. Now he sits on your side of that table, using that inside knowledge to fight for you. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family prays in Spanish, we speak your language.
We work on contingency. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We will tell you honestly whether you have a case, whether the deadline has passed, and whether the Ruveon restructuring or the Durnell Supreme Court case affects your rights. If we are not the right fit for your situation, we will tell you that too.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, live staff, not an answering service. Hablamos Español. There is no charge for the call, and there is no fee unless we win.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. If you are considering a claim, the most important step is the first one — finding out whether you have one, before the clock runs out.
