$4.4M Verdict Against Nutrien Ag in Pistachio Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
This litigation emerged from a coordinated legal proceeding involving multiple agricultural disputes. The central conflict arose within California's substantial pistachio industry, specifically involving growers in Fresno County who suffered significant crop losses following the 2020 harvest. The legal action brought together claims from various farming entities, including the Plaintiff, M.C. Watte Ranches, against chemical suppliers and distributors.
The dispute focused on the commercial relationship between pistachio growers and the corporations that manufacture and distribute agricultural chemicals. Growers like M.C. Watte Ranches contracted with processing facilities to deliver their harvest, relying on strict adherence to chemical safety standards to ensure their crops remained marketable. The Defendants in the coordinated proceedings included major industry players such as Nutrien Ag Solutions, a distributor that provided both the chemical products and the advisory services of Pest Control Advisors (PCAs).
The legal proceedings were consolidated into a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, a mechanism used in California to handle complex civil cases sharing common questions of fact or law. This specific trial, held in the Fresno County Superior Court before the Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan, addressed the negligence claims asserted by M.C. Watte Ranches against Nutrien Ag Solutions and the farming entity Brian Watte Farms. Additionally, the trial resolved a cross-complaint filed by Brian Watte Farms against Nutrien, further complicating the liability landscape by pitting the farming operation against the chemical supplier. The trial concluded in December 2025, culminating in a special verdict that apportioned responsibility among the parties involved in the agricultural production chain.
Cause
The core of the legal action stemmed from allegations that Nutrien Ag Solutions, a major distributor of crop inputs, provided negligent advice regarding the application of these chemicals. The growers asserted that Nutrien’s Pest Control Advisors (PCAs) recommended application rates or methods that did not align with safe usage standards for harvest. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argued that Nutrien allowed untrained or unlicensed employees to create Product Use Recommendations, which the growers then followed. This guidance allegedly resulted in the application of imidacloprid in amounts or at times that made it impossible for the chemical residue to degrade to legal levels before the pistachios reached processing facilities.
Injury
The primary injury occurred when M.C. Watte Ranches delivered their 2020 pistachio harvest for processing. Upon arrival at the processing facilities, samples taken from the delivery trucks and storage silos underwent testing for chemical residues. These tests revealed that the pistachios contained imidacloprid residue levels exceeding the tolerance of 0.05 parts per million established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Because the residue levels surpassed the legal safety threshold, regulatory bodies deemed the crops adulterated. This classification prohibited the sale of these pistachios in the United States and many international markets, effectively rendering millions of pounds of the crop unmarketable.
Damages Sought
M.C. Watte Ranches sought financial compensation for the substantial economic losses resulting from the rejected harvest. The damages calculation included the lost profits from the pistachios that they could not sell due to the contamination. Additionally, the grower sought recovery for costs associated with the "Reconditioning Plan" mandated by the FDA, which involved extensive testing and segregation of the affected nuts in an attempt to salvage any compliant portions of the harvest. The cross-complainant, Brian Watte Farms, similarly sought damages for lost profits resulting from the negligence attributed to the chemical supplier.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff(s): M.C. Watte Ranches, a California Partnership | Horizon Nut, LLC | Horizon Growers Cooperative, Inc. | Joel Perkins | Hillman Ranches, L.P | Eriksson, LLC | Coleman Land Co. LLC, among others.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Timothy L. Thompson | Jacob S. Sarabian | Nikole E. Cunningham | Robert M. Dowd | Luke V. Stempniak | John McCarron | Kelly M. Breen
Defendant(s): Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc | Bayer CropScience L.P | Albaugh, Inc | Rotam North America Inc | Loveland Products, Inc | Brian Watte
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Joshua N. Kastan | Benjamin A. Schwartzman | Nicholas A. Warden | Thomas J. Bullock | Jeffrey R. Baron | Elizabeth Hoskins Dow | E. Gabrielle Marcum | Brian Watte Farms | P. Gerhardt Zacher | Matthew Nugent
Claims
M.C. Watte Ranches maintained that Nutrien Ag Solutions bore the primary responsibility for the crop loss. They argued that as a grower, they relied on the specialized expertise of Nutrien’s advisors to ensure compliance with federal and state pesticide regulations. The legal team for the ranch emphasized that the application of the pesticide followed the specific recommendations provided by Nutrien. They contended that Nutrien breached its duty of care by failing to account for the harvest timeline and residue degradation rates when prescribing the chemical. The overarching argument was that but for this negligent advice, the crop would have met EPA standards and generated the expected revenue.
Brian Watte Farms, initially named as a Defendant and later filing a cross-complaint, also directed claims against Nutrien. They asserted that Nutrien's negligence harmed their operations as well. Their position aligned with M.C. Watte Ranches regarding the source of the error, arguing that the chemical supplier’s professional guidance was the substantial factor that led to the contamination issues.
Defense
Nutrien Ag Solutions denied the allegations of negligence. While the specific defense arguments for the trial were not detailed in the provided verdict forms, standard defenses in this litigation typically involved asserting that the growers applied the chemicals incorrectly or failed to follow the product labels independently of the advice given. The defense likely argued that the growers held the ultimate responsibility for what occurred in their fields and that environmental factors or application errors by the farm operators contributed to the residue issues.
Nutrien also pursued a defense strategy regarding mitigation of damages. They suggested that M.C. Watte Ranches and Brian Watte Farms could have taken steps to avoid some of the financial losses even after the contamination discovery. This included arguments about whether the growers made reasonable efforts to segregate the crop or find alternative markets where the residue levels might have been acceptable.
Jury Verdict
On December 10, 2025, the jury returned a special verdict in the Superior Court of Fresno County, resolving the claims of negligence and assigning liability among the parties.
Findings on Negligence and Liability The jury definitively found that Nutrien Ag Solutions acted negligently. They further determined that this negligence served as a substantial factor in causing harm to both M.C. Watte Ranches and Brian Watte Farms. The jurors rejected any notion that Nutrien acted without fault, marking a significant victory for the growers on the liability front.
However, the jury also scrutinized the actions of the farming operation itself. They found that Brian Watte Farms acted negligently and that this negligence also contributed as a substantial factor to the harm suffered by M.C. Watte Ranches. Consequently, the jury had to apportion fault between the chemical supplier and the farming entity.
Apportionment of Responsibility After weighing the evidence, the jury assigned the majority of the blame to the chemical supplier. They allocated 80% of the responsibility for the harm to Nutrien Ag Solutions. The remaining 20% of the responsibility fell upon Brian Watte Farms. This 80-20 split applied to the harm suffered by M.C. Watte Ranches as well as the harm suffered by Brian Watte Farms in its cross-complaint.
Award of Damages The jury calculated the total damages suffered by the growers without initially reducing the amount for their own percentage of fault.
For M.C. Watte Ranches, the jury awarded $3,095,756.61 in past economic loss, specifically identified as lost profits. The jury also affirmatively decided that M.C. Watte Ranches should receive pre-judgment interest on this amount. Regarding mitigation, the jury found that M.C. Watte Ranches could have avoided some of its damages through reasonable efforts, specifically assigning a value of 1% to the number of damages that they could have avoided.
For Brian Watte Farms (on their crossclaim against Nutrien), the jury awarded $1,314,892.46 in past economic loss for lost profits. Similar to the main verdict, the jury agreed that Brian Watte Farms should receive pre-judgment interest.
Outcome The verdict established a clear financial liability for Nutrien Ag Solutions, holding them largely accountable for the millions of dollars in lost pistachio crops due to the pesticide residue issues. While the growers bore a smaller portion of the fault, the substantial damages award reflected the jury's conclusion that the chemical supplier's advice played the critical role in the economic loss.