Case ILS/3:21-cv-00293 Document 26 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MDL No. 3004
`
`
`
` TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`IN RE: PARAQUAT PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Northern District of California Rakoczy action moves
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation involving injuries associated with exposure to
`the pesticide paraquat in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Southern District
`of Illinois. Plaintiff’s motion included fourteen actions pending in six districts, as listed on
`Schedule A, as well as 77 potentially-related actions.1
`
`Plaintiffs in the first-filed Eastern District of Missouri Holyfield action oppose
`
`centralization and, alternatively, suggest centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri. The
`remaining plaintiffs support centralization, differing only on choice of a transferee district. The
`Northern District of California is supported by plaintiffs in thirteen actions or potential tag-along
`actions as their primary transferee district choice and as an alternative choice by eleven plaintiffs.
`Plaintiffs in fifteen actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization in the Southern
`District of Illinois. The district is an alternative suggestion of plaintiffs in six cases. Other plaintiffs
`suggest centralization in the following districts: the Northern District of Alabama, the District of
`Minnesota, the Northern District of Mississippi, the Eastern District of Missouri and the Eastern
`District of Pennsylvania.
`
`Defendants Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Syngenta Corporation (collectively,
`
`Syngenta) and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron) do not oppose centralization in the Eastern District
`of Missouri or, alternatively, the District of Minnesota or the Northern District of Texas.
`
`After considering the argument of counsel,2 we find that centralization of these actions in
`
`the Southern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
`
`
`* Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this matter.
`
` 1
`
` These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
`1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
`
` 2
`
` 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. 3004 (J.P.M.L. May 10, 2021), ECF No. 107.
`
`

`

`Case ILS/3:21-cv-00293 Document 26 Filed 06/07/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`- 2 -
`
`the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Since 1964, paraquat has been used in the United
`States to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before the planting or emergence of various crops, to
`control weeds in orchards, and to desiccate plants before harvest. The actions here involve
`common factual issues concerning the propensity of paraquat to cause Parkinson’s Disease.3 This
`litigation likely will implicate complex scientific and regulatory issues. Centralization will
`eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of
`the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
`
`Plaintiffs in the first-filed Eastern District of Missouri Holyfield action oppose the motion
`
`to centralize, arguing that centralization is not needed because informal cooperation is feasible and
`that there are too few actions to justify centralization. They also argue that their case’s progress
`should not be impeded by centralization alongside newer cases. We are not persuaded by these
`arguments. To date, 77 actions and potential tag-along actions are pending in sixteen different
`districts. The prospect for informally coordinating so many actions, counsel and courts seems
`impractical, if not impossible. Plaintiffs in Holyfield can present their arguments about the need
`for swift progress in resolving their claims to the transferee judge.
`
`While any number of proposed transferee districts could ably handle this litigation, we are
`
`persuaded that the Southern District of Illinois is the appropriate transferee district for these cases.
`Illinois ranks in the top five states in paraquat usage. According to counsel for plaintiffs, paraquat
`litigation has been proceeding in Illinois state court for several years, and the most advanced state
`court action (Hoffman) is nearing trial. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel presides over all twenty cases
`in this district, and assigning this litigation to her affords us the opportunity to select a skilled jurist
`who has not yet served as a transferee judge. We are confident that Judge Rosenstengel will steer
`this litigation on a prudent course.
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Southern District of Illinois are transferred to the Southern District of Illinois and, with the
`consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Nancy J. Rosenstengel for coordinated or
`consolidated proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Certain plaintiffs in potential tag-along actions also allege that exposure to paraquat causes renal
`injuries. Whether the MDL should be expanded from Parkinson’s Disease to include renal injuries
`can be addressed by the Panel and the parties in due course through the conditional transfer order
`process.
`
`

`

`Case ILS/3:21-cv-00293 Document 26 Filed 06/07/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`
`
`
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`

`

`Case ILS/3:21-cv-00293 Document 26 Filed 06/07/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`IN RE: PARAQUAT PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MDL No. 3004
`
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`
`
`
`RAKOCZY v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−02083
`O’CONNOR, ET AL. v. SYNGENTA AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−02495
`ALBANESE, ET AL. v. SYNGENTA AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−02496
`DENES v. SYNGENTA AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:21−02416
`MAJORS v. SYNGENTA AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:21−02494
`
`
`
`HEMKER, ET AL. v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00211
`PIPER v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00228
`RUNYON v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00229
`KEARNS, ET AL. v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00278
`DURBIN v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00293
`
`
`
`HOLYFIELD, ET AL. v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20−00165
`
`
`
`BARRAT v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00050
`
`
`
`TURNER v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21−00211
`
`
`
`TENNESON v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00231
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`Eastern District of Missouri
`
`Northern District of West Virginia
`
`Southern District of West Virginia
`
`Western District of Wisconsin
`
`