`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2591
`
`IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR162
`CORN LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Panel: Two law firm plaintiffs in a Southern District of Illinois action (Crumley
`Roberts) against a law firm that allegedly owes plaintiffs fees in connection with work in cases
`against Syngenta move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order conditionally transferring the
`action, which is listed on Schedule A, to MDL No. 2591. Defendant Heninger Garrison Davis,
`LLC (HGD) opposes the motion.
`
`After considering the arguments of counsel, we find this action involves common questions
`
`of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2591, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
`conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in our order
`directing centralization. In that order, we held that the District of Kansas was an appropriate
`Section 1407 forum for actions sharing allegations regarding Syngenta’s decision to
`commercialize the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the absence of Chinese approval to
`import corn with that trait. See In re Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d. 1401
`(J.P.M.L. 2014). This action falls within the MDL’s ambit. It concerns work performed by
`attorneys in the multidistrict litigation against Syngenta, and will require interpretation of various
`orders of the MDL Court and the MDL settlement agreement.
`
`Plaintiffs are two law firms that contend that they are each entitled to approximately $10
`
`million of the $30 million in attorney fees awarded to defendant HGD, pursuant to an alleged oral
`agreement reached among the parties at some point before late-2014. Plaintiffs oppose transfer
`and argue that their case involves an agreement among the firms that is separate and distinct from
`any issues in the MDL. Plaintiffs contend that nothing in the transferee judge’s fee award
`abrogates their claims against HGD. But HGD argues otherwise, citing several rulings by the
`transferee court. See, e.g., In re: Syngenta, D. Kansas, C.A. No. 14-2591, doc. 3882 at 14 (fee
`award ruling noting that the Court is not bound by attorneys’ private agreements, that joint
`prosecution agreements “do not apply to the present situation involving a nationwide settlement
`class” and that the MDL settlement agreement expressly supersedes all other agreements). We
`view the best route to efficiently resolving this dispute is to give the transferee judge the first
`chance to rule on the effect of his prior orders. See, e.g., MDL No. 1203 – In re: Diet Drugs Prods.
`Liab. Litig., J.P.M.L. CM/ECF, doc. 3159 at 2 (J.P.M.L., Oct. 13, 2015) (transferring action, the
`resolution of which “likely will require the interpretation and possibly enforcement of pretrial
`
`
`
`
`orders entered in MDL No. 1203—tasks that can be most efficiently conducted by the transferee
`court, which issued those orders.); cf. In re: Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., J.P.M.L. CM/ECF doc.
`1143 (J.P.M.L., Dec. 12, 2007) (transferring attorney fee dispute among law firms that entered into
`joint venture to prosecute Rezulin-related claims, noting that transferee judge “is best-suited to
`rule on claims related to the management of this MDL docket, including questions concerning
`attorneys’ fees.”).
`
`Plaintiffs also argue that transfer is inappropriate because federal jurisdiction is lacking
`
`over their case. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional
`objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer.1 See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins.
`Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (“[R]emand motions
`can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge.”).
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the
`
`District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John W.
`Lungstrum for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case ILS/3:21-cv-00315 Document 21 Filed 06/07/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`-2-
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`______________________________________________
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Moreover, under Panel Rule 2.1(d), the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not limit
`the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date a
`remand motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized, a court
`generally has adequate time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so.
`
`
`
`Case ILS/3:21-cv-00315 Document 21 Filed 06/07/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR162
`CORN LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2591
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, ET AL. v. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC,
`
`
`C.A. No. 3:21−00315
`
`