Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP
| Decision Date | 26 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-3172 |
| Citation | 41 F.4th 1246 |
| Parties | Kenneth P. KELLOGG; Rachel Kellogg; Kellogg Farms, Inc.; Roland B. Bromley; Bromley Ranch, LLC ; John F. Heitkamp; Dean Holtorf; Garth Kruger; Charles Blake Stringer; Stringer Farms, Inc., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WATTS GUERRA LLP; Daniel M. Homolka, P.A.; Yira Law Office, Ltd; Hovland and Rasmus, PLLC; Dewald Deaver, P.C., LLO; Givens Law, LLC; Mauro, Archer & Associates, LLC ; Johnson Law Group; Wagner Reese, LLP; VanDerGinst Law, P.C.; Patton Hoversten & Berg, PA; Cross Law Firm, LLC; Law Office of Michael Miller; Pagel Weikum, PLLP; Wojtalewicz Law Firm, Ltd.; Mikal C. Watts; Francisco Guerra; Lowe Eklund Wakefield Co., LPA ; John Does, 1-250, Defendants - Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Douglas J. Nill, Douglas J. Nill, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Christopher L. Goodman, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, Saint Paul, Minnesota (John M. Degnan, Kathryn M. Short, and Adam Chandler, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Arthur G. Boylan and Philip J. Kaplan, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and William L. Davidson and Joao C.J.G. de Medeiros, Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, with him on the briefs), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal stems from mass litigation between thousands of corn producers and an agricultural company (Syngenta). The litigation took two tracks. On one track, corn producers filed individual suits against Syngenta. On the second track, other corn producers sued through class actions.1
The appellants are some of the corn producers who took the first track, filing individual actions. (We call these corn producers the "Kellogg farmers.") The Kellogg farmers alleged that their former attorneys had failed to disclose the benefits of participating as class members, resulting in excessive legal fees and exclusion from class proceedings. These allegations led the Kellogg farmers to sue the attorneys who had provided representation or otherwise assisted in these cases. The suit against the attorneys included claims of common-law fraud, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) and Minnesota's consumer-protection statutes, and breach of fiduciary duty.
While this suit was pending in district court, Syngenta settled the class actions and thousands of individual suits, including those brought by the Kellogg farmers. The settlement led to the creation of two pools of payment by Syngenta: one pool for a newly created class consisting of all claimants, the other pool for those claimants' attorneys. For this settlement, the district court allowed the Kellogg farmers to participate in the new class and to recover on an equal basis with all other claimants.
The court not only dismissed these claims but also assessed monetary sanctions against the Kellogg farmers. We uphold these rulings.
Like most of the other corn producers, the Kellogg farmers sued Syngenta for genetically modifying corn-seed products and commingling these products in the U.S. corn supply. The Kellogg farmers had intended to export much of that corn to China, but the Chinese government refused to import genetically modified corn. That refusal sparked tumbling corn prices and financial disaster for thousands of corn producers like the Kellogg farmers. Corn producers reacted by filing thousands of suits against Syngenta, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation transferred the suits to the District of Kansas for pretrial proceedings.
As the suits progressed, the Kellogg farmers began to reconsider the benefits of suing individually rather than participating in the class actions. As the Kellogg farmers reconsidered their litigation strategy, they suspected their former attorneys of inflating the legal fees by touting individual actions and concealing the benefits of class litigation. So the Kellogg farmers retained new counsel and sued in Minnesota federal district court, asserting claims against their former attorneys and seven other law firms that had provided legal assistance. That suit was then transferred to the District of Kansas as part of the multi-district litigation.
After the Kellogg farmers sued their former attorneys, the district court approved a global settlement of the cases involving Syngenta's genetically modified corn. The Kellogg farmers acknowledge that the settlement allowed them to participate equally as members of a newly created class consisting of all settling claimants. Corn producers in this class split a settlement pool of roughly $1 billion that Syngenta had paid.
The district court also created a separate pool of about $500 million for all of the claimants' attorneys. Given the availability of this pool, the court prohibited enforcement of any contingency-fee agreements.
Most of the appellate issues involve the Kellogg farmers' claims against their former attorneys. These issues fall into two categories:
We reject these arguments.
We lack jurisdiction to consider these requests.2
Federal law expressly prohibits appellate review of the Panel's denial of a motion to transfer the case to the originating court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e) (). Given the statutory prohibition of appellate review, transfer decisions are reviewable only through an extraordinary writ. Id. ; see In re Morg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. , 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014) (); In re Wilson , 451 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 2006) (); Grispino v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co ., 358 F.3d 16, 19 n.3 (1st Cir. 2004) (); see also In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 545 F.3d 304, 309 (5th Cir. 2008) (). Indeed, the Kellogg farmers themselves argued in district court: "In 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e), Congress stated that the only process for ‘review’ of transfer orders is via ‘extraordinary writ’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ‘in the court of appeals having jurisdiction over the transferee district.’ " Class Pls.' Omnibus Surreply to Mots. to Dismiss at 14, No. 18-cv-2408-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Mar. 6, 2019) (emphasis in original). We have previously denied the Kellogg farmers' requests for a writ, and we lack jurisdiction to review the transfer through this appeal.3
The Kellogg farmers argue that the Supreme Court has allowed appellate review of a Panel order, citing Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach , 523 U.S. 26, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998). We disagree with this interpretation of Lexecon .
Lexecon did not involve a challenge to the Panel's transfer of a case. There the Panel had transferred a case for pretrial proceedings. Id. at 31–32, 118 S.Ct. 956. After these proceedings ended, the transferee court refused to return the case to the initial court, conducted the trial, and entered judgment for the defendants. Id. at 32, 118 S.Ct. 956. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the transferee court's refusal to remand the case to the initial court for trial. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that the transferee court had to remand the case to the initial court before the case could go to trial. Id. at 40–42, 118 S.Ct. 956.
To continue reading
Request your trial