Blog

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Toxic-Tort & Glyphosate Cancer Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell — Attorney911 Pursues Monsanto and Its Bayer Corporate Parent on Surviving Design-Defect, Negligent-Testing and Fraudulent-Concealment Theories in MassTort-National Litigation, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, We Secure Exposure Histories, Pathology Reports and Monsanto Internal Corporate Documents Before Evidence Degrades, the EPA-IARC Carcinogenic Classification Divergence That Still Drives the Causation Science, the Firm Has Recovered Millions for Injury Victims, the Statute of Limitations Is Running on Your Glyphosate Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claim — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Your Roundup Case Is Not Automatically Over — But the Strategy Just Changed You heard the headlines. The Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto. And now you are sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m., wondering whether the case you have been thinking about — the one connecting the weedkiller you sprayed for years to the cancer you are now fighting — is dead before it starts. Here is the direct answer: No. Your case is not automatically over. But it changed, and the legal strategy has to change with it. The Supreme Court held that federal pesticide law preempts one specific type of claim — the claim that Monsanto failed to warn about cancer risk on the Roundup label. That was the dominant plaintiff theory. It is now largely closed. But the Court did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer. It did not dismiss every legal theory available to people who used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other claims — design defect, negligent testing, fraudulent concealment — may survive, depending on your exposure history, your diagnosis, and the law of your state. What the Court decided was a question about federal power, not a question about science. The Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning on Roundup labels. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — FIFRA — the Court ruled that states cannot impose their own labeling requirements through tort law when the federal regulator has…

40 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Glyphosate Cancer & Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Lawsuits: Attorney911 Pursues Bayer and Its New Ruveon Entity in MassTort-National Litigation When Corporate Restructuring Cannot Shield Monsanto’s Successor From Failure-to-Warn Strict Liability, We Secure the Internal Communications on Glyphosate Carcinogenicity and the Exposure Records Before the Restructuring Reshuffles Document Custodians, FIFRA Registration and IARC’s Group 2A Probably-Carcinogenic Classification Anchor the Causation Theory, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Bayer Created Ruveon — What That Means for Your Roundup Cancer Lawsuit You used Roundup. Maybe for years — on the farm, at the landscaping company, in your own backyard. Then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A blood cancer you never saw coming. And now you are reading that Bayer, the company that inherited the Roundup business when it bought Monsanto, is spinning its U.S. glyphosate operations into a new entity called Ruveon. The first question that hits you is the sharpest one: is this the company trying to make itself harder to sue? We are going to answer that question directly, because you deserve a straight answer — not a hedge. The short version: corporate restructuring does not erase liability. Bayer remains the parent entity. Monsanto designed, tested, marketed, and labeled Roundup for decades. The tens of thousands of lawsuits already filed — and the ones still being filed — name Bayer as the successor that assumed Monsanto’s liabilities when it acquired the company in 2018. A new subsidiary called Ruveon does not change who is on the hook for what happened before the ink dried on that restructuring. But it does add a layer of corporate complexity that your lawyer needs to understand and navigate — because the company certainly built it with its own defense in mind. If you or someone you love was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless…

46 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Glyphosate Cancer Lawsuits & Toxic Tort: Attorney911 Fights for St. Louis, Missouri Families Like John Durnell’s — 20 Years Spraying Roundup in Neighborhood Parks, Now Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma — We Pursue Bayer and the Monsanto Corporate Successor Behind the Product, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Avvo-Rated Excellent, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Bayer’s Claims Machine Sets Reserves and Denies Cases, FIFRA Preemption Now Blocks Failure-to-Warn but Design-Defect and Negligence-in-Testing Theories May Survive, We Secure Exposure Records and Internal Corporate Safety Documents Before They Vanish, Missouri Pure Comparative Negligence With No Caps on Non-Economic Damages in Product Liability, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Changed Every Roundup Cancer Case — Here Is What It Means for You You used Roundup. Maybe for years — on your yard, your garden, the parks in your neighborhood, the grounds where you worked. And then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the blood and lymph system that changes everything about how the rest of your life looks. You may have already heard that a jury in St. Louis awarded a Missouri man $1.25 million after finding the company failed to warn him about the cancer risk. You may have even filed a claim, or been told you had one. And now the news says the Supreme Court just blocked thousands of these lawsuits. We need to talk about what that actually means — because what the headlines say happened and what actually happened to your rights are two different things. The ruling closed one road. It did not close every road. And the company that made this product has set aside sixteen billion dollars — which tells you they understand the fight is not over, even if their lawyers just won a major battle. This page is for one person: someone in St. Louis, or anywhere in Missouri, who used Roundup, developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and is now reading the news at 2 a.m. wondering whether they still have a case. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort cases and the catastrophic injuries they cause. And what…

42 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Glyphosate Cancer & Product Liability Attorneys: After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling Reversed John Durnell’s Missouri Verdict, Attorney911 Pursues the Design Defect, Negligent Testing and Parallel-Claim Theories That Survive Against Bayer-Monsanto, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, We Secure the Medical Records, Exposure Histories and Monsanto Corporate Documents Before the Evidence Clock Runs, the IARC Probably-Carcinogenic Science Against EPA’s No-Warning Determination, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Bayer’s Claims Team Values and Denies These Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s Preemption Ruling — What Survives, What’s Dead, and What to Do Right Now If you used Roundup and later heard the words “non-Hodgkin lymphoma” from a doctor — and now you are reading about a Supreme Court decision that you fear just killed your case — we need you to read this page before you make a single decision. You are probably scared, probably angry, and probably being told by someone on the other side that your claim is over. We are here to tell you what the ruling actually says, what it does not say, which theories of liability may still be alive, and why the clock on your rights is still running even while the news makes it sound like everything is finished. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. Our trial team takes toxic tort and product liability cases in Missouri, working with local counsel where required, and we have spent our careers inside the machinery of mass tort litigation, corporate defendant structures, insurance valuation, and the exact kind of federal preemption doctrine the Supreme Court just wielded. What follows is not a press release. It is the honest, complete legal analysis we would give you across a kitchen table if you were sitting in front of us at two in the morning with a folder of medical records and a knot in your stomach. What the Supreme Court Actually Decided On June 25, 2026, the United…

43 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc Product Liability & Cancer Lawsuits: The Lancet Retracts a 49-Year-Old Editorial That Johnson & Johnson’s Paid Consultant Secretly Shaped to Defend Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder Linked to Ovarian Cancer and Mesothelioma — Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to the MassTort-National Talc Docket, We Pursue the Manufacturer and the Bankruptcy Subsidiary Shells It Built to Shield Liability Under Strict Product Liability, Failure to Warn, and Fraudulent Concealment Theories, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Cancer Cases, We Secure the Ghostwriting Correspondence and Internal Documents Before Spoliation, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases, the Statute of Limitations Is Running as J&J Returns to the Tort System — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Lancet Just Retracted a 49-Year-Old Editorial That Defense Lawyers Used Against Talc Cancer Victims — Here Is What It Means for Your Case If you or someone you love used Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products and later developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, you may have been told that the science was “unsettled” or that the medical community never considered asbestos in talc to be dangerous. One of the world’s oldest and most respected medical journals just proved that claim was built on a hidden industry document. The Lancet formally retracted a 1977 unsigned editorial that argued against government-mandated testing for asbestos in cosmetic talc — after two public health historians discovered the anonymous author was a paid consultant to Johnson & Johnson who shared an advance copy of the article with the company and incorporated its feedback before publication, while disclosing none of this to the journal. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort, wrongful death, and catastrophic injury cases. We are not counsel on the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation itself. What we are is a firm that understands how corporate defendants shape the scientific record to defend themselves in court, how the evidence of that shaping is found and preserved, and what a development like this retraction means for the 67,000-plus plaintiffs whose claims are still alive — and for families who have not yet come forward. This page is the education we would give you across a kitchen table…

42 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc Ovarian Cancer Wrongful Death Lawsuits in Los Angeles: After Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder Defense Verdict for the Deaths of Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken and Geneva Williams, 67,000 Claims Remain — Attorney911 Pursues the Manufacturer and Its Consumer Division Behind Cosmetic Talc Products It Pulled From the U.S. Market in 2020, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Mass-Tort Claims Machine Values and Denies Cancer Cases, We Preserve the Decedents’ Pathology Records and Tissue Blocks Before They Are Discarded and Pull J&J’s Internal Safety-Testing Documents, California’s Strict Product Liability Doctrine and the Wrongful-Death Filing Window, Perineal Talc Exposure Through the Reproductive Tract to Ovarian Cancer Latency and the Failure-to-Warn Claim, No MICRA Caps on Non-Economic Damages in Product Liability Cases, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Los Angeles Talc Ovarian Cancer Verdict: What Johnson & Johnson’s Defense Win Means for Your Case If you are reading this because you used talc-based baby powder for years and later heard the words “ovarian cancer” from a doctor — or because someone you love is gone and you are only now connecting the powder on the bathroom shelf to the disease that took them — you need to know what just happened in a Los Angeles courtroom and what it means for you. A jury in Los Angeles County returned a defense verdict for Johnson & Johnson in a wrongful death action brought by the families of three women who allegedly developed and died from ovarian cancer after prolonged use of J&J’s talc-based baby powder. The jury concluded that J&J was not negligent in the marketing and sale of its cosmetic talc products. That is a real outcome in a real trial, and we will not minimize it. But it is one verdict in one courtroom on one set of facts — and the honest truth about this litigation is that verdicts across the country have gone in both directions, some for the families and some for the company. What happened in Los Angeles does not close your door. It tells you what the fight looks like and what it takes to win it. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, and this page is our senior trial team’s analysis of what this verdict means, what the…

43 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc Product Liability & Ovarian-Cancer Wrongful-Death Attorneys: Attorney911 Pursues Johnson & Johnson and the Talc Supply Chain Behind Baby-Powder Asbestos Exposure in Los Angeles County, Where 800+ Consolidated Cases Turn on Specific Causation Proof — Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Corporate Claims Teams Value and Deny These Cases, We Secure the Pathology Slides, Exposure Histories and Internal Testing Records Before Retention Schedules Destroy Them, California’s Strict-Products-Liability Regime and Wrongful-Death Doctrine, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

What the June 2026 Los Angeles Talc Verdict Means for Your Family If you are reading this page, someone you love used Johnson & Johnson baby powder for years — maybe decades — and then died of ovarian cancer. And you just heard that a jury in Los Angeles sided with J&J in a trial involving three women who died the same way. Your first thought is probably: does this mean my family’s case is over too? It does not. And that is not a sales line — it is the structural reality of how mass tort litigation actually works. On June 5, 2026, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury returned a defense verdict for Johnson & Johnson in the second bellwether trial of the coordinated talc-ovarian cancer litigation. Ten of twelve jurors agreed with J&J’s central argument: that the families of three women who died of ovarian cancer had not proven that talc in baby powder actually caused their cancer. The verdict yielded zero recovery for those three families. But here is what that verdict does not do. It does not end the approximately 800 talc cases still consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. It does not end the more than 50,000 cases centralized in federal multidistrict litigation in New Jersey. It does not establish that talc is safe. It does not establish that baby powder does not cause cancer. And it does not determine what your family’s case is worth — because your case has its…

48 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer & Wrongful Death Attorneys — Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken, and Geneva Williams Died of Ovarian Cancer After Long-Term Perineal Talc Use, Their Families’ Wrongful-Death Claims Against Johnson & Johnson Tried in a Los Angeles Courtroom, Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Talc Products-Liability Litigation, We Pursue the Manufacturer and Its Distribution Chain Under California’s Strict-Liability and Failure-to-Warn Doctrine, the IARC Classified Perineal Talc as Possibly Carcinogenic and Causation Proof Is the Battleground Across 67,000 Pending Claims, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How J&J’s Corporate Litigation Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Secure Product Containers, Pathology Slides and Exposure Histories Before They Disappear and the Statute of Limitations Runs, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

A Los Angeles Jury Said “Not Negligent” — Your Family’s Talc Case Is Not Over You are reading about this verdict at the worst possible hour. Someone you love used Johnson’s Baby Powder for years — maybe decades — and then ovarian cancer took her. You found a lawyer, or you were about to. And now the headline says a Los Angeles jury sided with the company. Ten of twelve jurors said Johnson & Johnson was not negligent. The company’s litigation leadership called the plaintiffs’ evidence “junk science.” And you are sitting at a kitchen table wondering whether any of this is still worth pursuing. It is. We are going to tell you exactly why, and exactly what this one verdict does and does not mean for families like yours — honestly, without pretending a defense verdict is a victory, and without pretending it is the end. Here is the first thing to understand: this was one trial, in one courtroom, with three specific wrongful death claims, tried on one specific legal theory — negligence — in front of one specific jury. Over 67,000 talc cases remain pending against Johnson & Johnson across the country. The company has won some trials and lost others. The litigation is not over. The science is not settled. And the evidence that decides whether your family’s case is strong or weak is fading right now — product containers being discarded, medical records aging toward destruction, and family memories of talc-use habits degrading with every…

38 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

MassTort-National Talc Mesothelioma & Asbestos Toxic Tort Attorneys: Attorney911 Litigates Johnson & Johnson and the Talc Manufacturers Behind Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder That Now Accounts for 40% of Mesothelioma Filings — Sharp Invisible Asbestos Fibers Ground Into Cosmetic Powder That Lodge in Cell Linings and Trigger the Mutations That Become Mesothelioma, We Secure Preserved Product Containers, Pathology Blocks and Corporate Internal Testing Records Before They Disappear, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, Strict Product Liability With the Limitations Clock Running From Diagnosis Under the Discovery Rule, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims & Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Talc Now Blamed for Nearly Half of All Mesothelioma Lawsuits in 2025 If you are reading this page, someone you love has probably just heard a word no one is ever ready for — mesothelioma. Maybe you are the one who was diagnosed. Maybe it is your mother, your father, your spouse. You are sitting with a folder of medical records, a treatment plan you barely understand, and a question that is eating at you: how did this happen? You never worked in a refinery. You never installed insulation. You never served aboard a ship. You cannot point to a single day when you were “exposed to asbestos” at a job site. And then someone asks the question that changes everything: did you use talcum powder? Baby powder? Body powder? For years? For decades? And the answer is yes — and suddenly the diagnosis is not a mystery anymore. It is a product. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are trial lawyers who handle toxic tort and catastrophic injury cases, and we are writing this page for the person at 2 a.m. who just connected the dots between a powder they trusted since childhood and a cancer that has a median survival measured in months. This page is the truth about what the 2025 litigation data shows, what the science of asbestos-contaminated talc actually is, what the law gives you the right to pursue, and what the evidence clock demands of you right now — not…

46 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Product Liability Attorneys: The Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Preemption Ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell Blocked State Failure-to-Warn Claims, but Attorney911 Pursues Surviving Theories Against Bayer and Monsanto for St. Louis, Missouri Families Diagnosed With Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma After Decades of Glyphosate Exposure in the City Where Monsanto Was Founded — Design Defect, Express Warranty and Fraudulent Concealment Beyond the EPA-Approved Label, We Secure the Internal Carcinogenicity Documents and Exposure Histories Before Memories of Decades-Old Spraying Fade, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, the $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Still Proceeding, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Catastrophic Injury Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled on Roundup. Your Case Is Not Automatically Over. You saw the headline. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal law blocks most state-level lawsuits claiming Roundup’s maker failed to warn users about cancer risks. Maybe you used Roundup for years — on your property, at your job, as a volunteer in St. Louis parks like the man whose case reached the highest court in the country — and then a doctor said the words non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Maybe you already have a lawyer, or a filed claim, or a diagnosis you have been sitting with for months, waiting to act. And now a headline tells you the door just closed. It did not close all the way. The ruling is real. It is a significant legal setback for one specific type of claim — the failure-to-warn theory that produced the largest Roundup verdicts in history. But the same company that just won at the Supreme Court, Bayer, announced it is still proceeding with its proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve remaining claims. Think about what that means: the corporation that fought for nearly a decade to block these lawsuits is still running a settlement program to pay people who used its product and developed cancer. That is not the behavior of a company that believes every claim is worthless. It is the behavior of a company that knows the claims have value and is trying to control…

42 min read Read Article