Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754
Sonoma County is one of the most significant Roundup litigation markets in California. In 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded Edwin Hardeman — a Sonoma County man — more than $80 million in damages after finding that long-term Roundup use caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Hardeman's case was one of the first federal bellwether trials against Monsanto and remains among the most significant Roundup verdicts tied directly to this county. Sonoma County's 60,000 acres of wine grape vineyards used over 40,000 pounds of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — in 2022 alone, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. That volume of agricultural application means a large population of vineyard workers, agricultural employees, and landscapers in this county have experienced long-term occupational glyphosate exposure. Attorney Michael Rehm represents Sonoma County residents diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure on a contingency fee basis.
Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used herbicide. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. An independent meta-analysis published in Mutation Research found a 41 percent increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in agricultural workers with high glyphosate exposure. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system that includes multiple subtypes, among them diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced over 170,000 Roundup lawsuits as of early 2026 and has paid out approximately $11 billion in prior settlements. Litigation continues. As of March 2026, a proposed $7.25 billion settlement in federal court has received preliminary approval but faces objections from a significant number of plaintiffs' firms. The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on federal preemption in a related Roundup case in April 2026. The outcome of that argument will affect the ability of state-court plaintiffs to pursue failure-to-warn claims. The litigation is active and the landscape is changing.
Who May Have a Claim
The strongest Roundup claimants are individuals who can demonstrate regular, long-term exposure to glyphosate-containing products — typically at least three years of use and a minimum lifetime exposure of approximately 40 hours — followed by a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or a related lymphatic cancer. Agricultural workers, vineyard workers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and others with occupational exposure are in the highest-exposure category. Residential users who applied Roundup regularly to lawns and gardens over a period of years have also pursued claims, though the commercial formulations to which agricultural workers are exposed generally involve higher concentrations and longer contact times.
Relevant questions in a Roundup case include the type and duration of glyphosate exposure, the protective equipment used (or not used) during application, the specific Roundup product involved, the timeline from first exposure to diagnosis, and the subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosed. These factors affect both whether a claim is viable and what it may be worth.
Legal Theory
Roundup claims sound primarily in products liability — specifically, failure to warn. Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto and its successor Bayer knew that glyphosate presented a risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma but failed to include a cancer warning on the Roundup label. The negligence standard under Civil Code § 1714 also applies, and juries in multiple cases have awarded punitive damages after finding that the company acted with conscious disregard for public safety. The pending Supreme Court preemption argument concerns whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held those claims are not preempted; the Third Circuit has ruled the other way. A Supreme Court decision would resolve the circuit split.
Filing Deadline
Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. California's delayed discovery rule may toll the limitations period where a claimant did not know and could not reasonably have known that their cancer was caused by Roundup exposure. Whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific facts of your situation promptly.
Related Pages
Attorney Michael Rehm represents Sonoma County residents diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup and glyphosate exposure on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.
The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.