throbber
Case ILS/3:21-cv-00315 Document 21 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket