In re Syngenta AG Mir 162 Corn Litig.
Decision Date | 11 September 2015 |
Docket Number | Case Nos. MDL 2591,14–MD–2591–JWL. |
Parties | In re SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Cases. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
, District Judge.
Table of Contents
Summary of Ruling
1185
Background
1186
Governing Standards
1187
Choice of Law
1188
Analysis
1188
I.
Duty
1188
II.
Proximate Cause
1193
III.
Economic Loss Doctrine
1193
IV.
FIFRA Preemption
1207
V.
Claims Based on Duracade/Event 5307
1208
VI.
Trespass to Chattels
1209
A.
Intermeddling
1209
B.
Contact with Producer Plaintiffs' Corn
1211
C.
Damage
1212
D.
Intent
1212
VII.
Private Nuisance
1212
A.
Syngenta's Participation in the Invasion
1212
B.
Invasion of Plaintiffs' Land
1215
C.
Unreasonable Invasion
1216
VIII.
Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy
1217
A.
Identification of Relationships
1217
B.
Intent
1218
C.
Improper Means
1218
D.
Termination of Relationship
1219
IX.
Trans Coastal's Claim for Negligent Interference
1219
A.
Improper Means
1220
B.
Duty of Care
1220
X.
Lanham Act Claims
1221
A.
Standing—Fairly Traceable/Proximate Cause
1221
B.
Statutory Standing—Within the Zone of Interests
1222
C.
"Commercial Advertising or Promotion"
1224
D.
Forward–Looking Statements
1224
XI.
Trans Coastal's Misrepresentation Claims
1227
A.
Fraud Claims
1227
B.
Negligent Misrepresentation Claims
1228
XII.
Minnesota Consumer Protection Claims
1229
A.
Public Benefit
1229
B.
Purchasers as Merchants
1231
C.
Application to Non–Minnesota Residents
1232
XIII.
Colorado Consumer Protection Claims
1234
XIV.
Illinois Consumer Protection Claims
1235
A.
Standing
1235
B.
Exemption for Authorized Actions
1237
XV.
Nebraska Consumer Protection Claims
1237
A.
Standing
1237
B.
Exemption for Regulated Actions
1238
XVI.
North Carolina Consumer Protection Claims
1238
A.
Standing
1238
B.
Effect on Consuming Public
1239
C.
Reliance on Misrepresentations 113
1240
XVII.
North Dakota Consumer Protection Claims
1240
In this multi-district litigation ("MDL"), three groups of plaintiffs—corn producers, non-producer corn sellers, and milo producers—have brought claims against various related Syngenta entities ("Syngenta"). The corn producers and non-producers have asserted claims on behalf of variously defined classes, while the milo claims are asserted on behalf of three individual plaintiffs. This matter comes before the Court on Syngenta's motion to dismiss the corn producer and non-producer complaints (Doc. # 856) and its motion to dismiss the milo producers complaint (Doc. # 929). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants the motions with respect to the following claims, which are hereby dismissed:
Plaintiffs are granted leave to file amended complaints to cure certain of these deficiencies, as set forth herein, by October 4, 2015. The motions are otherwise denied.
Plaintiffs generally allege the following facts. Syngenta develops and sells genetically-modified crop seeds. Syngenta developed MIR 162 and Event 5307, genetic traits that it included in products called Viptera and Duracade, which products were intended to make the resulting corn crops more resistant to certain pests. After a period of development, Syngenta petitioned the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2007 for deregulation of Viptera, and the USDA approved the product for sale in 2010. Syngenta petitioned the USDA for deregulation of Duracade in 2011, and approval was granted for that product in 2013. Corn grown by farmers who did not purchase Syngenta's products gradually became contaminated with the MIR 162 and Event 5307 traits through cross-pollination from neighboring fields. In addition, Viptera- and Duracade-grown corn was commingled with other corn in grain elevators and other storage facilities. Eventually, Viptera corn infiltrated the general domestic corn supply.
Syngenta developed and commercialized Viptera and Duracade before those products were approved for import into China. In November 2013, China began rejecting all corn from the United States containing the MIR 162 trait. China eventually approved such corn in December 2014, but the loss of the Chinese market for that period caused prices to decrease in the United States, which in turn caused harm to plaintiffs.
Syngenta misled the public and made misrepresentations to the public and the USDA concerning the status and likelihood and imminence of Chinese approval of the products and about the products' impact on export markets. Syngenta also misled the public and made misrepresentations concerning the ability of growers and others to avoid infiltration of Viptera into the entire corn supply (through channeling and otherwise) and concerning steps Syngenta pledged to take in that regard (including by implementing stewardship practices). Syngenta's actions actually increased the risk of contamination and commingling of the corn.
Thousands of separate lawsuits based on these allegations have been filed against Syngenta in federal and state courts. An MDL was created, and all such federal court cases have been transferred to this Court for that purpose. This Court appointed lead and liaison plaintiffs' counsel, who filed separate amended master complaints on behalf of producer plaintiffs and non-producer plaintiffs, which complaints include class action allegations, and on behalf of individual milo producers. Most individual plaintiffs have filed notices to conform their pleadings to the master complaints. A substantial number of cases have been remanded to state courts on the basis of the Court's ruling that Syngenta's invocation of the federal common law of foreign relations in removing those cases did not in fact create a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The producer plaintiffs are corn growers who did not use Syngenta's seeds in growing their corn. By their master complaint, the producer plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the federal Lanham Act ( ); claims for violations of Minnesota's consumer protection statutes (on behalf of all producers); and various state-law claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and state-wide classes of putative plaintiffs residing in 22 different states, including (for each state) claims for negligence and some combination of claims for trespass to chattels, private nuisance, tortious interference, and statutory consumer protection violations.1
The four named non-producer plaintiffs (residing in Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Mississippi respectively) exported, stored, transported, or sold corn. They assert individual and class action claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, negligence, and trespass to chattels. One of the named non-producer plaintiffs also asserts claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and a claim under California law for negligent interference with prospective economic relations.
The three individual milo plaintiffs (residing in Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri respectively) are milo growers. They allege that the milo market in the United States is so closely tied to the corn market that they suffered the same economic damages that corn producers did. They assert claims for violations of the Lanham Act and Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. In addition, the Arkansas and Missouri milo plaintiffs assert state-law claims for negligence and for tortious interference, and the Kansas milo plaintiff asserts a claim for negligence.
Syngenta has moved to dismiss all three master complaints. The Court has considered the parties' briefs, including sur-reply and sur-sur-reply briefs relating specifically to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Dicamba Herbicides Litig.
...a "consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product." Id. at 132, 134 S.Ct. 1377. In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. , 131 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1222 (D. Kan. 2015), is instructive. In that case, the plaintiffs were farmers who did not purchase the defendant's genetically mod......
-
Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
...because the Minnesota legislature did not specify that it is intended to apply outside Minnesota. See In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. , 131 F. Supp. 3d 1177, 1232–33 (D. Kan. 2015) (concluding MCFA "may be applied in this case only to conduct taking place in Minnesota" where plaintiff......
-
In re Syngenta AG Mir 162 Corn Litig. Classes Certified By the Court
...the extent that such claim is based on a lack of warnings in materials accompanying the products." See In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. , 131 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1208 (D. Kan. 2015). Syngenta now seeks summary judgment on any other failure-to-warn claim asserted by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs r......
-
Suez Water N.Y. Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...of the PCBs after they were in the ownership and control of Westinghouse. See id. at 613.10 Likewise, in In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. , 131 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (D. Kan. 2015), the United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed a private-nuisance claim brought agains......
-
Economic loss rule
...in the detailed September 2015 Memorandum and Order of U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum [ In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig. , 131 F.Supp.3d 1177, 1193-1208 (D. Kan. 2015)], the ruling focuses at length on the law of 22 states to distinguish between those states’ treatment of “econo......