Kathleen Moller’s lawsuit concerns the death of her daughter, Harmony Moller, and OPMS kratom products. In this filing, she asks a federal judge to prevent the defendants from arguing that Harmony bears some responsibility for her own death.
At a glance
- What is being decided: Whether comparative fault can be asserted against the consumer.
- What the plaintiff says: The product warnings were inadequate, so the consumer should not be blamed for failing to anticipate undisclosed hazards.
- What the coroner recorded: An anatomical coronary abnormality exacerbated by mitragynine use; manner of death: accident.
- What remains contested: Whether kratom caused or contributed to the death and whether the warnings met legal requirements.
- Evidence available: 20 original PACER PDFs, including labels, sworn testimony, the autopsy and competing expert reports.
What the original product labels show
The powder and capsule exhibits display ingredient information, mitragynine amounts, a 7-OH specification, and general directions to consult a healthcare professional. They also contain disclaimers placing responsibility for adverse consequences on the consumer.
The plaintiff argues that these statements did not adequately warn of the specific dangers at issue. The presence of a disclaimer does not, by itself, resolve whether a product was properly labeled under applicable law.
What the death investigation says
The St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s report identifies an abnormally high left coronary ostial takeoff exacerbated by mitragynine use as the cause of death and classifies the manner as accidental. It also reports pulmonary edema and congestion.
The defendants dispute the causal significance of kratom. Their expert reports offer competing interpretations of the medical and toxicological evidence. The coroner’s opinion is important evidence, but it does not settle the civil liability question.
What the sworn testimony addresses
Deposition excerpts question company representatives about warnings for products intended for human consumption, cardiovascular risk information, and the use of the phrase “botanical specimen.” The archived OPMS website also contains more extensive medical-condition and drug-interaction cautions.
For legislators, the question is practical: could a purchaser understand the product’s relevant risks from what appeared on the package at the time of sale?
The defense’s scientific position
The file includes reports from Drs. Jack Henningfield, Edward Boyer, Christopher McCurdy, Marilyn Huestis and Dennis Paustenbach. They address kratom’s pharmacology, toxicology, the interpretation of postmortem findings and alternative explanations for death.
These reports are defense-retained opinions. They should be read alongside the plaintiff’s evidence rather than treated as independent findings of the judge.
Why this matters to lawmakers
Product-safety laws depend on more than the existence of a warning. They depend on whether the warning conveys the relevant danger, whether its instructions are usable, and whether consumers can identify the responsible seller. This filing provides a concrete example of how those questions are litigated when a death is alleged to involve kratom leaf products.
The central dispute is not whether a warning existed. It is whether the warning adequately communicated the risk.
Original PACER documents and exhibits
Every file below comes from the supplied PACER archive. Titles are descriptive editorial labels, not official court titles. Each description explains what the record contains and why it matters. PACER numbering is preserved, including the absent 253-17 attachment.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Comparative-Fault DefensePACER 253 · 2 pagesKathleen Moller asks the court to rule that the defendants cannot assign fault to Harmony Moller for using OPMS kratom. This is a request for a legal ruling, not a ruling itself.
READ PDFPlaintiff’s Legal Brief: Why Consumer Blame Should Not Reduce LiabilityPACER 253-1 · 12 pagesThe supporting memorandum argues that the defendants should not shift responsibility to a consumer when warnings allegedly failed to disclose the relevant hazards. It explains the Louisiana comparative-fault standard and cites the attached records.
READ PDFPlaintiff’s Statement of Facts: Death, OPMS Products and WarningsPACER 253-2 · 3 pagesThe plaintiff lists facts she asks the judge to treat as undisputed, including the circumstances of the death, labeling and expert opinions. The defendants may dispute the proposed facts.
READ PDFOPMS Silver Kratom Powder: Original Package LabelPACER 253-3 · 3 pagesPhotographs show the powder packaging, ingredient and alkaloid information, general warning and disclaimer assigning responsibility to the consumer. Lawmakers can compare the label with the hazards alleged in the lawsuit.
READ PDFOPMS Silver Kratom Capsules: Original Package LabelPACER 253-4 · 3 pagesPackaging images identify 600 mg kratom leaf per capsule, mitragynine content, a 7-OH specification and general precautions. The plaintiff questions whether these statements adequately communicated potentially serious risks.
READ PDFHarmony Moller Autopsy: Coroner Attributes Death to Coronary Abnormality Exacerbated by MitragyninePACER 253-5 · 11 pagesThe St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s report records an abnormally high left coronary ostial takeoff exacerbated by mitragynine use as the cause of death and classifies the manner as accidental. It also describes pulmonary edema. Causation remains contested in the litigation.
READ PDFDr. Jack Henningfield’s Defense Report: Kratom Pharmacology and Public-Health ArgumentsPACER 253-6 · 43 pagesThe defense-retained expert reviews kratom chemistry, safety research, consumer uses and regulatory policy, arguing against characterizing ordinary kratom as presenting risks equivalent to classical opioids. His opinions are disputed expert evidence.
READ PDFMark Reilly Deposition: Manufacturer Responsibility for Consumer InstructionsPACER 253-7 · 4 pagesSworn deposition excerpts question Reilly about whether sellers of products intended for consumption should develop and communicate appropriate instructions and warnings. Read the exchange in context rather than treating counsel’s questions as admissions.
READ PDFDavid Gabbay Corporate Deposition: Product Labeling and Safety InformationPACER 253-8 · 5 pagesExcerpted testimony from JOpen’s corporate representative addresses company knowledge and the handling of product information. The short excerpt is part of a larger deposition and should be read with that limitation.
READ PDFMark Jennings Deposition: Cardiovascular Risks and Kratom UsePACER 253-9 · 4 pagesSworn testimony addresses cardiovascular conditions and whether kratom users should be cautioned about those risks. The exchange illustrates what the plaintiff says sellers should have disclosed.
READ PDFArchived OPMS Website: Product Disclaimer and Drug-Interaction WarningsPACER 253-10 · 4 pagesA December 2022 Wayback Machine capture contains OPMS website directions and warnings, including consultation with a healthcare provider and cautions about medical conditions and combining products with medications. It permits comparison with package labeling.
READ PDFMark Reilly Deposition: “Botanical Specimen” Labeling Versus Human ConsumptionPACER 253-11 · 3 pagesThe excerpt questions Reilly about the meaning of a botanical-specimen designation and the intended use of the product. The plaintiff uses the testimony to challenge the clarity of labeling.
READ PDFJOpen’s Formal Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for AdmissionPACER 253-12 · 10 pagesThe company’s written admissions, denials and objections set out which proposed facts it accepts or contests. These responses should not be described as admissions unless the individual answer expressly admits the fact.
READ PDFDr. Edward Boyer’s Defense Toxicology Report: Alternative Causes of DeathPACER 253-13 · 17 pagesThe defense-retained emergency physician and medical toxicologist evaluates Harmony Moller’s medical and toxicology records and disputes the attribution of her fatal event to kratom. His conclusions are expert opinions, not findings by the court.
READ PDFDr. Christopher McCurdy’s Defense Pharmacology Report: Kratom and CausationPACER 253-14 · 7 pagesThe defense-retained pharmacologist reviews kratom science and the case-specific evidence to assess whether kratom contributed to death. This provides the defendants’ scientific position for comparison with the plaintiff’s experts.
READ PDFDr. Marilyn Huestis’s Defense Forensic Toxicology ReportPACER 253-15 · 15 pagesThe defense-retained toxicologist assesses kratom alkaloids and interpretation of toxicology findings. Her report is relevant to what postmortem concentrations can, and cannot, establish about causation.
READ PDFDr. Dennis Paustenbach’s Defense Toxicology and Risk-Assessment ReportPACER 253-16 · 18 pagesThe defense expert addresses toxicology and risk assessment in the context of the lawsuit. His report is offered by the defendants and should be considered alongside the competing medical opinions.
READ PDFPlaintiff’s Proposed Court Order: Comparative Fault (Unsigned)PACER 253-18 · 1 pageA proposed order submitted for the judge’s consideration. It does not establish that the motion was granted; a signed docketed ruling would be needed.
READ PDFNotice of Submission: Hearing Schedule for Plaintiff’s MotionPACER 253-19 · 2 pagesProcedural notice identifying when the plaintiff submitted the comparative-fault motion for consideration. It is not substantive medical evidence.
READ PDFExhibit 15: Two-Page Image-Only Court ExhibitPACER 253-20 · 2 pagesThe two-page attachment has no reliable extractable description of its contents. It is retained under its original PACER number without assigning unsupported facts.
READ PDFSource note: United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Moller v. Martian Sales et al., Civil Action 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC. Filing and exhibits are advocacy and litigation materials; allegations, expert opinions and proposed orders are not judicial findings. PACER 253-17 was not included in the supplied archive.
