Case MN/0:21-cv-00475 Document 67 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`MDL No. 2993
`
`
`
`IN RE: CROP INPUTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in five Southern District of Illinois actions move under 28 U.S.C. §
`1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs’ motion includes the
`thirteen actions listed on Schedule A, as well as eleven potentially-related actions pending in four
`districts.1 Plaintiffs’ motion is supported in its entirety by plaintiffs in the Southern District of
`Illinois Duncan and Vienna Eqho Farms actions. Plaintiffs in five District of Minnesota actions,
`the District of Kansas action, and potential tag-along actions in the District of Minnesota (seven
`actions), the District of Idaho (one action) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (one action)
`support centralization in the District of Minnesota. Defendants2 support centralization in the
`Eastern District of Missouri or, alternatively, the District of Minnesota.
`
`After considering the argument of counsel,3 we find that centralization of these actions in
`
`the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
`promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions involve common factual
`allegations about defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, including a group boycott of electronic
`sales platforms and price fixing in the manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing of crop inputs –
`i.e., seeds and chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. Plaintiffs variously bring
`claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, analogous state antitrust statutes,
`
`
`* Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this matter.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
`1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
`
` Winfield Solutions, LLC, BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, LP, Bayer Cropscience Inc.,
`CHS Inc., Cargill Incorporated, Corteva Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., Growmark Inc.,
`Nutrien AG Solutions Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc.,
`Syngenta Corporation, Tenkoz Inc., Univar Solutions, Inc., and Growmark FS, LLC.
`
` 3
`
` In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard oral
`argument by videoconference at its hearing session of May 27, 2021. See Suppl. Notice of Hearing
`Session, MDL No. 2993 (J.P.M.L. May 10, 2021), ECF No. 131.
`
`
`

`

`Case MN/0:21-cv-00475 Document 67 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`and consumer protection laws, and for common law claims such as unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
`seek to represent nationwide classes of crop input purchasers. All actions are in their relative
`infancy, and all parties support centralization, though they disagree as to the selection of a
`transferee forum. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial
`rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
`
`While any number of proposed transferee districts could handle this litigation ably, we are
`
`persuaded that the Eastern District of Missouri is the appropriate transferee district for this dispute.
`The Eastern District of Missouri is where the Bayer CropScience defendants are based. Several
`other defendants also have a significant presence in Missouri. Documents and witnesses relevant
`to plaintiffs’ claims may be found there. Moreover, centralization in this district allows us to
`assign these cases to a jurist, Judge Stephen R. Clark, Sr., who has not yet had the opportunity to
`preside over multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Clark will steer this litigation on
`a prudent course.
`
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Eastern District of Missouri are transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the
`consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Sr., for coordinated or
`consolidated proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`
`
`
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`

`

`Case MN/0:21-cv-00475 Document 67 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`IN RE: CROP INPUTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2993
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`
`
`PIPER v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00021
`SWANSON v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00046
`LEX v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00122
`DUNCAN v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00158
`JONES PLANTING CO. III v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00173
`CANJAR v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00181
`VIENNA EQHO FARMS v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00204
`
`
`
`BUDDE v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21−02095
`
`
`
`HANDWERK v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:21−00351
`FLATEN v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:21−00404
`RYAN BROS., INC., ET AL. v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:21−00433
`PFAFF v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:21−00462
`CARLSON v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:21−00475
`
`District of Kansas
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`