`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`BARBARA PIPER, as Executrix of the
`Estate of MICHAEL PIPER, Deceased,
`on behalf of herself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`JOHN C. SWANSON, individually
`and on behalf of others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`CHARLES LEX,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-21-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-46-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-122-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00046-NJR Document 54 Filed 04/06/21 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #305
`
`JONES PLANTING CO. III, on behalf
`itself and all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`JASON J. CANJAR d/b/a YEDINAK
`REGISTERED HOLSTEINS,
`on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-173-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-181-NJR
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
`
` This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Pending Decision by the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed by Defendants Bayer CropScience LP,
`
`Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Cargill
`
`Incorporated, BASF Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC,
`
`Univar Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions,
`
`Inc., GROWMARK, Inc., GROWMARK FS, LLC, Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., and Tenkoz,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) (Doc. 90).
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00046-NJR Document 54 Filed 04/06/21 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #306
`
`Defendants seek a temporary stay of the “Crop Input” antitrust litigation pending
`
`a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) regarding if and
`
`where this litigation will be coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings. (Id.).
`
`They argue a stay would preserve judicial resources, conserve the parties’ resources, and
`
`serve the efficiency goals of the multidistrict litigation process. (Id.).
`
`Plaintiffs oppose the motion, asserting that stays are an exception to the general
`
`rule that litigation should proceed efficiently, they will be prejudiced if these cases are
`
`stayed while Defendants continue their anticompetitive conduct, and judicial resources
`
`will not be wasted, as the court’s primary role at this point is to monitor standard pretrial
`
`activities. (Doc. 98). They also argue Defendants will suffer no prejudice, as Defendants
`
`must file responsive pleadings and produce documents and witnesses—regardless of
`
`what the JPML decides. (Id.).
`
`In reply, Defendants argue that district courts, including those in this District,
`
`routinely issue stays while ethe JPML adjudicates MDL motions. (Doc. 101). Proceeding
`
`with the litigation during the pendency of the JPML motion, they argue, “would cause
`
`numerous inefficiencies in this District and cascading inefficiencies in others.” (Id.).
`
`Under Rule 2.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of JPML, “[t]he pendency of a motion
`
`. . . before the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and
`
`pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not limit the
`
`pretrial jurisdiction of that court. J.P.M.L. R. 2.1(d). Thus, this Court retains full
`
`jurisdiction over this action unless and until the JPML issues a transfer order. Rutherford
`
`v. Merck & Co., 428 F. Supp. 2d 842, 845 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Illinois Mun. Retirement Fund
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00046-NJR Document 54 Filed 04/06/21 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #307
`
`v. Citigroup, Inc., 391 F.3d 844, 850 (7th Cir. 2004)). “The decision to grant a stay rests
`
`within the Court’s discretion.” Id. “[A] putative transferor court need not automatically
`
`postpone rulings on pending motions, or in any way generally suspend proceedings,
`
`merely on grounds that an MDL transfer motion has been filed.” Edmondson v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`
`No. 4:16-CV-1944 (CEJ), 2017 WL 492829, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2017).
`
`After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court is not convinced that a stay is
`
`warranted in these matters. Currently, there are 21 Crop Input cases pending, eight of
`
`which are in this District and assigned to the undersigned. See In Re: Crop Inputs Antitrust
`
`Litigation, MDL No. 2993. Of the remaining cases, 10 are pending in the District of
`
`Minnesota, one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, one in the District of Kansas, and
`
`one in the District of Idaho. Id. While the District of Minnesota has two more cases than
`
`this District, the number of cases in Illinois is not insubstantial. See In re Pradaxa Prod. Liab.
`
`Actions, No. 3:12-CV-00610-DRH, 2012 WL 2357425, at *2 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2012) (eleven
`
`cases in the Southern District of Illinois out of 27 cases total were “far too many cases to
`
`ignore the issues that are of concern to this Court while the MDL Motion is being
`
`resolved”).
`
`Furthermore, there is no guarantee the JPML will consolidate all cases before a
`
`single judge, nor is there any assurance that a decision will be made in the next few weeks,
`
`as Defendants contend. And, contrary to Defendants’ argument, the risk of inconsistent
`
`rulings—at this point—is minimal. These cases are in their infancy. No matter where the
`
`cases end up, Defendants will still be required to file responsive pleadings, answer
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00046-NJR Document 54 Filed 04/06/21 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #308
`
`discovery, produce documents, and make their witnesses available for deposition. A stay
`
`will only delay the inevitable by weeks, if not months.
`
`For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay Pending Decision by the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed by Defendants (Doc. 90). Defendants’
`
`alternative request to extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
`
`Consolidated Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their responsive
`
`pleading on or before April 27, 2021.
`
`A telephonic status conference will be set by separate Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: April 6, 2021
`
`____________________________
`NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
`Chief U.S. District Judge
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`