throbber
Case: 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ Doc. #: 15 Filed: 08/25/21 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 22
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
`
`
` MDL No.: 1:18-md-02820-SNLJ
`
` Indiv. Case No. 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`COY’S HONEY FARM, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER
`U.S., LLC; BAYER CROPSCIENCE
`Arkansas Inc.; BASF CORPORATION;
`and BASF SE
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer U.S., LLC, Bayer Cropscience Arkansas Inc., and
`
`BASF Corporation1 move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6). In support thereof, Defendants state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim (Count I) because
`
`Plaintiff lacks standing because Plaintiff is not within the zone of interests protected by the
`
`Lanham Act, and also because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because Plaintiff did not allege
`
`a loss of goodwill or any direct diversion of sales from itself to Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`1 BASF SE is also named as a defendant in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, but BASF SE
`has not been served.
`
`
`
`US.134341222.01
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ Doc. #: 15 Filed: 08/25/21 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 23
`
`2.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty of
`
`merchantability claim (Count V) because Defendants disclaimed all implied warranties on their
`
`product labels and because Plaintiff failed to plead the statutorily required pre-suit notice.
`
`3.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s nuisance claim (Count VI) because Plaintiff
`
`does not allege that any of the Defendants owned or otherwise used land in Arkansas, much less
`
`in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s hives—an essential element of the cause of action.
`
`4.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s trespass claim (Count VII) because Plaintiff
`
`failed to plead intent, because product manufacturers are not liable for trespass after a product
`
`leaves their control, and because particulate matter does not constitute a physical invasion under
`
`Arkansas’s traditional view of trespass.
`
`5.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s strict liability – ultrahazardous/abnormally
`
`dangerous activity claim (Count X) because ultrahazardous activity liability does not apply to
`
`mere product manufacturers and herbicide application, including application of dicamba-based
`
`herbicides, is a matter of common usage.
`
`6.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
`
`Practices Act (Count XI) because the statute provides a safe harbor for regulated transactions
`
`such as the manufacture and sale of herbicides, and Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with
`
`particularity.
`
`7.
`
`This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s product liability related claims (Counts II,
`
`III, IV, V, VIII, and IX) because they are untimely. Although Plaintiff knew of its claimed
`
`injuries and alleged connection to Defendants’ products back in 2017, Plaintiff delayed filing the
`
`current suit until May 2021, more than a year after the applicable three-year statute of limitations
`
`had run.
`
`
`US.134341222.01
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ Doc. #: 15 Filed: 08/25/21 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 24
`
`8.
`
`A memorandum in support of this motion is filed contemporaneously and
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer U.S., LLC, Bayer Cropscience
`
`Arkansas Inc., and BASF Corporation respectfully request that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First
`
`Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DATED: August 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US.134341222.01
`
`
`THOMPSON COBURN LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Sara L. Chamberlain
` Sara L. Chamberlain, # 62792MO
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
`LLP
`
`By: /s/ John P. Mandler
` John P. Mandler
` Shane A. Anderson
` 2200 Wells Fargo Center
` 90 S. Seventh Street
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
` (612) 766-7000
` FAX (612) 766-1600
` John.Mandler@faegredrinker.com
` Shane.Anderson@faegredrinker.com
`
` Ross W. Johnson
` Carolyn A. Gunkel
` 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
` Des Moines, IA 50309
` (515) 248-9000
` FAX (515) 248-9010
` Ross.Johnson@faegredrinker.com
` Carolyn.Gunkel@faegredrinker.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant BASF
`Corporation
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ Doc. #: 15 Filed: 08/25/21 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Christopher M. Hohn, # 44124MO
` One U.S. Bank Plaza
` St. Louis, Missouri 63101
` (314) 552-6000
` FAX (314) 552-7000
` schamberlain@thompsoncoburn.com
` chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
`
` Attorneys for Defendants Bayer
`
`Corporation, Bayer U.S., LLC, and
`
`Bayer Cropscience (Arkansas) Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US.134341222.01
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00089-SNLJ Doc. #: 15 Filed: 08/25/21 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 26
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`/s/ John P. Mandler
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on August 25, 2021, the foregoing was filed electronically with the
`
`Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all counsel of
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US.134341222.01
`
`
`5
`
`

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