Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-CV-299-SNLJ |
| Parties | BADER FARMS, INC. and BILL BADER Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs Bader Farms, Inc. and Bill Bader's (collectively "Bader") motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to add a party defendant (#68). The motion is briefed and ripe. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Bader's motion.
The facts are fully discussed in this Court's previous memorandum and order (#50). In short, Bader alleges that Monsanto violated standard industry practice and committed a number of tortious acts by releasing dicamba-resistant seeds without a corresponding herbicide. Dicamba herbicide is highly volatile and prone to drifting, which means spray particles move by air to non-target or neighboring sites, sometimes miles away. Dicamba is toxic to all broadleaf plants that are not genetically engineered to withstand it. Here, Bader alleges that farmers who purchased Monsanto's seeds illegally sprayed "old" dicamba; then, dicamba spray particles drifted onto Bader's crops, causing millions of dollars in damage.
Bader filed its initial petition (#4) in state court. After removal to this Court, and while Monsanto's motion to dismiss was pending, Bader filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (#51). This Court granted the motion (#61). In its amended complaint, Bader asserted a new claim of civil conspiracy. Specifically, Bader alleged that Monsanto's representatives directed farmers who purchased Monsanto's dicamba-resistant seeds to illegally spray old dicamba herbicide. The old dicamba would kill unwanted weeds, the theory goes, and the seeds were resistant.
(#68 at 1).
Bader wants to add BASF so it can amend its civil conspiracy claim. The conspiracy is no longer between Monsanto and the farmers who bought dicamba-resistant seeds, according to Bader—it's much bigger. Instead, Bader claims that Monsanto and BASF conspired to create an "ecological disaster" where farmers would be forced to buy dicamba-based products. In 2015 and 2016, Monsanto and BASF "colluded" so that Monsanto's dicamba-resistant seeds would be released before either company released its "new" dicamba-based herbicide; the new dicamba would not drift like the old dicamba.Then, the companies' agents allegedly encouraged farmers to spray the old dicamba on their dicamba-resistant seeds. Neighboring farmers would then be forced to buy dicamba-resistant seeds so that old dicamba would not kill their non-resistant plants. With all these farmers buying dicamba-resistant seeds, the market for both companies' new dicamba would grow.
Bader then claims that Monsanto and BASF conspired to withhold data and mislead federal and state regulatory agencies so their new herbicides would be approved. The new herbicides were used in the 2017 growing season. According to Bader, the new dicamba still caused damage, and it seeks to add this 2017 damage in its second amended complaint. Bader also added allegations—relating to the new herbicides—to the following counts: strict liability—design defect, strict liability—failure to warn, negligent design and marketing, negligent failure to warn, negligent training, and fraudulent concealment.
Monsanto challenges the request to add claims for the new conspiracy, trespass, and additional damage in 2017.
Because Monsanto has filed an answer (#64), Bader Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998). But parties do not have an absolute right to amend their pleadings, even under this liberal standard. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend iswithin the discretion of the court. Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
A district court may deny a motion to amend if (1) it was filed with undue delay, (2) the moving party filed the motion with bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by the amendment, or (4) the amendment would be futile. Bell, 160 F.3d at 454. "In most cases, '[d]elay alone is insufficient justification; prejudice to the nonmovant must also be shown.'" Moses.com Secs., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Bell, 160 F.3d at 454).
Parties may be added as a defendant if (1) "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and (2) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
The Court must analyze the motion under both Rule 15 and Rule 20. Because Monsanto attacks only the new conspiracy, trespass, and ongoing 2017 crop damage claims, the Court will discuss only those proposed claims.
First, Monsanto suggests that Bader filed this motion in bad faith or with dilatory motive in an effort to evade summary judgment. While Monsanto claims that it engaged in targeted discovery to move for summary judgment on the amended complaint,Monsanto has not yet filed a motion for summary judgment. Here, its reliance on authority where courts denied motions to amend after motions for summary judgment were filed and discovery was complete is misplaced. Nothing in the record suggests that Bader filed this motion in bad faith or with dilatory motive.
Second, Monsanto argues that a motion to amend should be denied when a plaintiff has already been given a chance to cure defects in the complaint and failed. But here, Bader did not amend its original petition to cure any defect; it amended to add a civil conspiracy claim. This argument fails, too.
Third, Monsanto claims that Bader's facts in support of the alleged conspiracy between Monsanto and BASF were alleged in the original petition. Because Bader could have added this claim from the outset, the claim is now unduly delayed. But typically, delay alone is insufficient, and the non-moving party must also show prejudice. Moses.com Secs., 406 F.3d at 1065....
To continue reading
Request your trial