IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 01-30058 Summary Calendar _______________

JOHNNY BYONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JOHNNY ODOM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS MONSANTO COMPANY; ET AL., Defendants, MONSANTO COMPANY; ASGROW SEED COMPANY; SF SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana _________________________ August 6, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Louisiana farmers Johnny Byone and Circuit Judges. Johnny Odom purchased and grew Roundup Ready® brand soybeans during 1997 and PER CURIAM:* 1998. Experiencing lower yields than anticipated, they sued the developer of this strain of soybean, Monsanto Company, and * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be * published and is not precedent except under the (...continued) limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. two seed companies, Asgrow Seed Company Even if their claim were not time-barred, their and SF Services, who sold them the beans. claim is without merit, as we will explain.

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Finding no error, we affirm, III. essentially for the reasons given by the district Although Byone and Odom’s fraud claim court in its comprehensive ruling entered on for the 1998 crop is timely, they cannot December 13, 2000. prevail. First, they point us to no actual promise or guarantee of a high yield; they I. present only scientific data and farmers’ Monsanto Company genetically engineered testimony suggesting that Roundup Ready® the Roundup Ready® soybean to resist the seeds have equal yield potential to that of effects of Roundup brand herbicide so that other soybean varieties. Second, even farmers could spray to control weeds without assuming that these sophisticated soybean harming their crop. Byone and Odom admit producers justifiably relied on some ephemeral that the soybeans withstood the herbicide as promise in t he advertisements, only expected, but they contend that despite misstatements concerning past or present facts assurances of “maximum yield potential” and are actionable as fraud under Louisiana law. “no reduction in yield potential,” the Roundup See America’s Favorite Chicken v. Cajun Ready® plants produced fewer soybeans than Enters., Inc., 130 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. did the other brands they planted simultane- 1997).1 Finally, Asgrow’s seed bags carried a ously. Byone and Odom claim that such ad- disclaimer noting that Asgrow provided no vertising fraudulently misrepresented the per- guarantee “of crop yield or freedom from seed formance of these seeds. We have reviewed borne diseases.” the record, and we conclude that the court correctly entered summary judgment. AFFIRMED.

II.

Byone’s and Odom’s fraud claim for the 1997 crop is time-barred. A one-year statute of limitations applies to delictual actions such as tortious or negligent misrepresentation. See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 3447, 3492 (West 2001). Under Louisiana law, when a plaintiff cannot reasonably know of the cause of action, the doctrine of contra non valentum tolls this 1 period until the plaintiff has information In America’s Favorite Chicken, an analogous suit against a franchiser for fraudulent sufficient to prompt further inquiry. See El- misrepresentation of sales potential, we construed dredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d this proposition broadly. The franchiser provided 737, 742 (5th Cir. 1992). Assuming arguendo projected sales figures and promised that if the pur- that the doctrine applies here, the latest time at chasers ran the store properly, sales definitely which Byone and Odom could have had such would increase. We concluded that even this information was when they harvested their promise was not actionable. America’s Favorite 1997 crop; they did not sue until July 1999. Chicken, 130 F.3d at 186.