US District Court Judge John Lungstrum reversed his prior ruling on the matter to have three cases, filed by non-Kansas plaintiffs, dismissed from the ongoing case in Kansas. The cases include producer plaintiffs McDonald AG Inc, et al. v Syngenta AG et al.; Koeller, et al. v Syngenta AG et al.; and Wright, et al. v Syngenta AG, et al.
“The claims by non-Kansas plaintiffs in these cases are subject to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue, and the court grants in part Syngenta’s underlying motion to dismiss,” said the judge in court documents. “The court orders, upon agreement by the parties, that these particular plaintiffs’ claims be transferred to the districts in which they reside.”
The move can be seen as a win for Syngenta regarding what cases can be used during the ongoing bellwether pool progress, said Jennifer Carter-Johnson, assistant professor of law at Michigan State University. “They’ll count that as a win, if they get rid who they wanted to get rid of,” she added.
“It’s all strategy,” she told FeedNavigator. “You’re trying to build the best case possible for your client.”
Corn case details
The case against Syngenta was started in 2014 by Cargill and ADM alleging Syngenta’s sale of genetically modified corn seeds, MIR 162 or Viptera and Duracade, in the US led to millions in losses after China, which had not approved the corn variety, refused imports with the strain.
The litigation action subsequently widened to include corn producers, milo producers and non-producers.
Syngenta requested the lawsuit against it be thrown out, but, in September 2015, the case was allowed to move forward in the US District Court for the District of Kansas.
In November, the Swiss company brought a countersuit against members of the original lawsuit alleging the duty to isolate the corn fell to grain elevators, transporters and exporters but that case was dismissed this spring.
Pretrial setup
Syngenta initially raised a concern about several of the cases being filed in Kansas, by non-Kansas plaintiffs as work started on the bellwether process, according to case documents. The company asked for the non-Kansas plaintiffs to be dismissed because they did not have personal jurisdiction and were in the improper venue.
Plaintiffs in the case, said in court documents, that the challenge was done to limit the court’s ability to determine the appropriate forum for trial regarding the plaintiffs’ claims and asked that the dismissal request be denied.
In March, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did have authority to be included in the Kansas case, however, he reversed that decision after a request for it to be reconsidered developed Syngenta’s arguments, he said in court documents.
“Syngenta has now presented a much more thorough analysis of the application of the Commerce Clause, relying on different authority,” said Lungstrum in court documents. The court could have denied the reconsideration because the argument could have been better explained it initially, but it did not given the seriousness of the situation and because the argument was found to e compelling, he added.
It is not is not uncommon to see a reversal of a ruling if it pertains to a jurisdictional issue, especially in a case that has many different people involved, said Carter-Johnson. “When you have this many moving parts, it’s not unusual to see a lot of objections coming form a lot of different places, so you might see the judge change his mind because new arguments were brought to him,” she added.
The process can become very complicated quickly, she said. If a case is overturned for a jurisdictional issue, then it may have to be completely litigated again.
The bellwether process establishes a test case and is often used to understand how law may apply to a contested issue, said Carter-Johnson.
“Typically this happens where have an MDL [multi-district litigation] type practices, so what they do is this case will be heard and then whichever side loses that’s going to shape any other cases that are out there,” she said. “If Syngenta won, then the people on the other cases will use a different strategy, or different legal arguments, or do a whole lot of different discovery.”
But, the outcome also could persuade a side to seek a settlement in the matter, she added.
Moving forward
A process has been put in place to manage other non-Kansas plaintiffs filing in Kansas, said Lungstrum in an order.
“The Court will transfer [another case], as well as any other cases filed after the date of this order by non-Kansas plaintiffs directly in Kansas that are included in this MDL, to a corresponding federal district court of proper venue as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1391 at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings,” he said.
A hearing on a motion for class certification has been set for September 13 and a pretrial conference regarding the bellwether trial pool of cases has been scheduled for December 1.