The opinion
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. Case No. 3:21-cv-21-NJR
BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
Defendants,
JOHN C. SWANSON, individually
and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 3:21-cv-46-NJR
BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
Defendants,
CHARLES LEX,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:21-cv-122-NJR
v.
BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
Defendants,
JONES PLANTING CO. III, on behalf
itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 3:21-cv-173-NJR
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. Case No. 3:21-cv-181-NJR
BAYER CROP SCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE INC., et al.,
Defendants.
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).
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
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
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 qT g 5
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 5 of 5