Case: 4:21-cv-00654-SEP Doc. #: 55 Filed: 04/06/21 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 317
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`BARBARA PIPER, as Executrix of the
`Estate of MICHAEL PIPER, Deceased,
`on behalf of herself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`JOHN C. SWANSON, individually
`and on behalf of others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`CHARLES LEX,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-21-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-46-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-122-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`BARBARA PIPER, as Executrix of the
`Estate of MICHAEL PIPER, Deceased,
`on behalf of herself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`JOHN C. SWANSON, individually
`and on behalf of others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`CHARLES LEX,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-21-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-46-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-122-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-00654-SEP Doc. #: 55 Filed: 04/06/21 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 318
`
`JONES PLANTING CO. III, on behalf
`itself and all others similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants,
`
`
`JASON J. CANJAR d/b/a YEDINAK
`REGISTERED HOLSTEINS,
`on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
`CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-173-NJR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-181-NJR
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
`
` This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Pending Decision by the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed by Defendants Bayer CropScience LP,
`
`Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Cargill
`
`Incorporated, BASF Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC,
`
`Univar Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions,
`
`Inc., GROWMARK, Inc., GROWMARK FS, LLC, Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., and Tenkoz,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) (Doc. 90).
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-00654-SEP Doc. #: 55 Filed: 04/06/21 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 319
`
`Defendants seek a temporary stay of the “Crop Input” antitrust litigation pending
`
`a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) regarding if and
`
`where this litigation will be coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings. (Id.).
`
`They argue a stay would preserve judicial resources, conserve the parties’ resources, and
`
`serve the efficiency goals of the multidistrict litigation process. (Id.).
`
`Plaintiffs oppose the motion, asserting that stays are an exception to the general
`
`rule that litigation should proceed efficiently, they will be prejudiced if these cases are
`
`stayed while Defendants continue their anticompetitive conduct, and judicial resources
`
`will not be wasted, as the court’s primary role at this point is to monitor standard pretrial
`
`activities. (Doc. 98). They also argue Defendants will suffer no prejudice, as Defendants
`
`must file responsive pleadings and produce documents and witnesses—regardless of
`
`what the JPML decides. (Id.).
`
`In reply, Defendants argue that district courts, including those in this District,
`
`routinely issue stays while ethe JPML adjudicates MDL motions. (Doc. 101). Proceeding
`
`with the litigation during the pendency of the JPML motion, they argue, “would cause
`
`numerous inefficiencies in this District and cascading inefficiencies in others.” (Id.).
`
`Under Rule 2.1(d) of the Rules of Procedure of JPML, “[t]he pendency of a motion
`
`. . . before the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and
`
`pretrial proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does not limit the
`
`pretrial jurisdiction of that court. J.P.M.L. R. 2.1(d). Thus, this Court retains full
`
`jurisdiction over this action unless and until the JPML issues a transfer order. Rutherford
`
`v. Merck & Co., 428 F. Supp. 2d 842, 845 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Illinois Mun. Retirement Fund
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-00654-SEP Doc. #: 55 Filed: 04/06/21 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 320
`
`v. Citigroup, Inc., 391 F.3d 844, 850 (7th Cir. 2004)). “The decision to grant a stay rests
`
`within the Court’s discretion.” Id. “[A] putative transferor court need not automatically
`
`postpone rulings on pending motions, or in any way generally suspend proceedings,
`
`merely on grounds that an MDL transfer motion has been filed.” Edmondson v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`
`No. 4:16-CV-1944 (CEJ), 2017 WL 492829, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2017).
`
`After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court is not convinced that a stay is
`
`warranted in these matters. Currently, there are 21 Crop Input cases pending, eight of
`
`which are in this District and assigned to the undersigned. See In Re: Crop Inputs Antitrust
`
`Litigation, MDL No. 2993. Of the remaining cases, 10 are pending in the District of
`
`Minnesota, one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, one in the District of Kansas, and
`
`one in the District of Idaho. Id. While the District of Minnesota has two more cases than
`
`this District, the number of cases in Illinois is not insubstantial. See In re Pradaxa Prod. Liab.
`
`Actions, No. 3:12-CV-00610-DRH, 2012 WL 2357425, at *2 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2012) (eleven
`
`cases in the Southern District of Illinois out of 27 cases total were “far too many cases to
`
`ignore the issues that are of concern to this Court while the MDL Motion is being
`
`resolved”).
`
`Furthermore, there is no guarantee the JPML will consolidate all cases before a
`
`single judge, nor is there any assurance that a decision will be made in the next few weeks,
`
`as Defendants contend. And, contrary to Defendants’ argument, the risk of inconsistent
`
`rulings—at this point—is minimal. These cases are in their infancy. No matter where the
`
`cases end up, Defendants will still be required to file responsive pleadings, answer
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-00654-SEP Doc. #: 55 Filed: 04/06/21 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 321
`
`discovery, produce documents, and make their witnesses available for deposition. A stay
`
`will only delay the inevitable by weeks, if not months.
`
`For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay Pending Decision by the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed by Defendants (Doc. 90). Defendants’
`
`alternative request to extend the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
`
`Consolidated Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their responsive
`
`pleading on or before April 27, 2021.
`
`A telephonic status conference will be set by separate Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: April 6, 2021
`
`____________________________
`NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
`Chief U.S. District Judge
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
