OPMS Kratom Lawsuit: Motion to Declare Products Unreasonably Dangerous

Kathleen Moller, whose daughter Harmony died in 2023, is asking a federal court to decide an important part of her wrongful-death lawsuit before trial: whether OPMS kratom products, including OPMS Silver Green Vein Maeng Da powder and capsules, were unreasonably dangerous under Louisiana law.

This is a plaintiff's motion filed March 12, 2026, not a court ruling. The defendants can dispute its factual and legal assertions. The proposed order included in the record is unsigned.

At a glance

Case: Kathleen Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc. and others, No. 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC, Eastern District of Louisiana.
What is requested: Partial summary judgment that OPMS kratom products are unreasonably dangerous; alternatively, findings concerning alleged adulteration, misbranding and specific facts.
Product: OPMS Silver Green Vein Maeng Da kratom powder and capsules.
Supporting record: Motion, memorandum, statement of facts, proposed order, notice, and 56 numbered exhibits (some filed under seal).
Status: This archive does not establish whether the judge subsequently ruled on the motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary JudgmentPACER 315 · 5 pages

OPEN PDF

Legal Argument: Why Plaintiff Says OPMS Products Were Unreasonably DangerousPACER 315-1 · 32 pages

OPEN PDF

Five allegations legislators should examine

These points come from the plaintiff's motion and statement of facts. They are not independent findings by the court.

1. The packaging allegedly did not warn that consumers could die

The plaintiff asks the court to establish that OPMS Silver labels did not disclose the risk of death or serious injury, explain how to recognize overdose, or tell users what to do during a serious adverse reaction. Motion, pages 3–4.

2. The products were sold for consumption while labeled as botanical specimens

The plaintiff argues that OPMS powder and capsules were plainly intended to be swallowed, despite packaging describing them as for botanical-specimen use. The distinction matters because safety disclosures and product responsibilities depend on how a product is actually marketed and used. Statement of facts, pages 4–5.

3. The company identified on the label allegedly did not exist

The filing alleges that “Choice Organics” was a nonexistent entity, that the listed address was a mailbox location, and that contact information did not provide a reliable way to report serious adverse events. These are plaintiff allegations requiring evaluation against the exhibits and defense responses. Statement of facts, page 4.

4. The plaintiff alleges the products were adulterated and misbranded

The motion relies on federal new-dietary-ingredient requirements and FDA's kratom import alert to argue that OPMS kratom was not supported by adequate safety information. An FDA import alert is a regulatory document; it does not by itself establish that every kratom exposure is fatal or prove liability in this case. Motion, pages 2–3.

5. The records describe multiple companies involved in one product

The plaintiff identifies separate entities handling sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, website management and adverse-event monitoring. Legislators considering traceability requirements should ask whether a consumer can identify the responsible business and report an injury. Statement of facts, pages 2–4.

Question for lawmakersWhen a kratom product is sold for people to consume, who must verify its safety, disclose potentially fatal risks, and answer reports of serious injury?

What the supporting exhibits add

The filing is more than a legal brief. It includes photographs of OPMS packaging, corporate testimony, an autopsy report, FDA materials, expert analysis, scientific research, archived product disclaimers and documents describing the OPMS business structure.

Autopsy evidence: The St. Tammany Parish Coroner's report appears as Exhibit 7. Its findings must be considered in context; the existence of an autopsy exhibit does not resolve disputed causation. Read Exhibit 7.

FDA evidence: Exhibits include FDA's kratom import alert and a warning concerning OPMS Black Liquid. The latter addresses a different OPMS product and should not be described as a finding about the Silver product involved in this case. Import alert · OPMS Black warning.

Scientific evidence: An exhibit includes a study describing 7-hydroxymitragynine as an active metabolite of mitragynine. That finding is relevant to the effects of ingested mitragynine, but laboratory pharmacology alone does not establish the cause of an individual death. Read study.

Why this matters to state and local lawmakers

Debates over kratom regulation often focus on whether a product can be labeled and sold responsibly. This case raises more basic questions: whether warnings disclose severe harm, whether labels identify an accountable company, whether an adverse event can be reported, and whether the product has adequate evidence of safety for its intended use.

The plaintiff is asking a court to treat these issues as established facts. Lawmakers should read the underlying record and recognize that the motion remains an advocacy filing unless and until the court adopts its conclusions.

Original PACER documents and exhibits

All 61 PDFs are preserved. Descriptive filenames identify their role; the original PACER document number remains at the beginning of each filename. Generic descriptions are used where a document's subject cannot be reliably identified from the available text. Sealed-exhibit PDFs contain only the public placeholder, not the sealed evidence.