Jeremy Miller v. Monsanto Co

── Jeremy Miller v. Monsanto Co ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2847 __________ JEREMY G. MILLER, Appellant v. MONSANTO COMPANY ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00011) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer L. Hall ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 8, 2026 Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 14, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Jeremy G. Miller appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint. We will affirm. Miller brought a products liability action against Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), alleging injuries from exposure to Roundup®-branded herbicides. According to his complaint, Miller worked at Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. in Plymouth, Indiana “for at least six months” beginning on June 27, 2011. Miller alleges he was exposed to glyphosate-containing Roundup® products during his employment and was then diagnosed with testicular cancer in November 2012. He initiated this action on January 5, 2024, raising claims of negligence, strict products liability – design defect, strict products liability – failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties.1 Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 10, 2025, the District Court granted the motion, holding that Miller’s claims are barred by the statute of repose in the Indiana Products Liability Act (“ILPA”). Miller timely appealed. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 Miller filed a nearly identical suit against Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto in 2022 in the Northern District of Mississippi, where the District Court dismissed his claims against Monsanto for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Miller v. Monsanto Co., No. 22-18, 2022 WL 14812684, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2022). The court denied reconsideration on February 27, 2023. 2 12(b)(6) is de novo. See In re Allergan Erisa Litig., 975 F.3d 348, 353 n.9 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Because Miller is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his filings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). But pro se litigants still must “abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). Miller was a resident of Indiana at the time he was allegedly exposed to Roundup® products, as well as at the time of his testicular cancer diagnosis. The parties do not dispute that his claims are governed by the IPLA.2 See Hathaway v. Cintas Corp. Servs. Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 669, 673 (N.D. Ind. 2012) (explaining that the IPLA “governs all actions brought by a user or consumer against a manufacturer or seller for physical harm caused by a product, regardless of the legal theory upon which the action is brought”). The ILPA has a 10-year statute of rep