Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation

United States District Court, D. Kansas

March 1, 2019

IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION
v.
Watts Guerra, LLP, et al., Nos. 18-2408-JWL, 14-md-2591-JWL This Document Relates To Kellogg, et al.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Watts Guerra, LLP (“Watts Guerra”), Mikal Watts, and Francisco Guerra (Doc. # 140), in which most of the other defendants have joined (Doc. ## 142, 143, 144, 146).[1] Defendant Lowe Eklund Wakefield Co., LPA has also filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. # 149), in which it joins the other defendants' motion and asserts additional bases for dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement of standing. Accordingly, the Court grants the motions and dismisses this action in its entirety.[2]

         I. Background

         This action has been transferred into multi-district litigation (MDL), over which this Court presides, involving claims by farmers and others in the corn industry against various related entities known collectively as Syngenta. On December 7, 2018, the Court certified a settlement class and approved a global settlement[3] of claims against Syngenta, including claims that had been pending in the MDL, in a similar consolidated proceeding in Minnesota state court, and in federal court in Illinois. See In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 2018 WL 6436074 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2018), appeals filed. The Court also awarded one third of the settlement fund as attorney fees. See Id. On December 31, 2018, the Court allocated the attorney fee award among various pools of attorneys (with further allocation within the pools to be completed in the future by the three courts). See In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 2018 WL 6839380 (D. Kan. Dec. 31, 2018), appeals filed. In so doing, the Court allocated a portion of the fee award to a pool to compensate individually-retained private attorneys (IRPAs), and it held that any attorney representing a client on a contingent fee basis relating to the settled claims could recover attorney fees only from the Court's fee award and the allocation pools. See id.

         Watts Guerra and various associated counsel filed individual lawsuits against Syngenta in Minnesota state court on behalf of a large number of clients. Those clients were generally excluded from the litigation classes certified in the MDL and in Minnesota state court. Watts Guerra agreed to the settlement, however, and its clients were included in the settlement class. Watts Guerra and associated counsel presently seek awards of attorney fees from the Minnesota pool allocation and the IRPA pool allocation.

         In the present suit (Kellogg), plaintiffs are six sets of corn growers who were formerly represented by Watts Guerra and associated counsel in the Syngenta litigation. Plaintiffs assert claims against those attorneys, including claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Minnesota statutes, and common law. Plaintiffs also seek to assert those claims on behalf of a class of approximately 60, 000 farmers who signed retainer agreements with defendants relating to the Syngenta litigation. In general, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to maximize their attorney fees, in which defendants pursued individual lawsuits while misrepresenting or failing to disclose the possibility and benefits of participating in class actions. Defendants now seek dismissal of those claims.

         II. Analysis

         Defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement of standing. The Court agrees that plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden, and it therefore dismisses this suit.[4]

         The requirement of standing is rooted in Article III of the Constitution, which limits the scope of federal courts' power to actual cases and controversies. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). A federal court plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing, and at the pleading stage the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each required element of standing. See Id. Specifically, the plaintiff must show that he or she “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Id. (citations omitted). To establish the “first and foremost” element of injury in fact, “a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” See Id. at 1547-48 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “For an injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” See Id. at 1548 (internal quotations and citations omitted). To be concrete, the injury must actually exist and not be merely abstract. See id.

         As defendants note and plaintiffs do not dispute, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges only two general ways in which plaintiffs were harmed by defendants' conduct: first, defendants effected the exclusion of their clients from the class actions, and plaintiffs were thus deprived of the opportunity to litigate their claims against Syngenta within a class action; and second, that exclusion meant that plaintiffs faced the likelihood of effectively paying attorney fees twice, once through the percentage of the common fund that would be awarded to class counsel and a second time through the fees that defendants would recover under the 40-percent contingent fee agreements plaintiffs signed.

         Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not suffered and will not suffer either type of harm. They argue that plaintiffs were not harmed by the exclusion from the initially certified litigation classes because no judgment was ever entered in favor of those classes. In approving the global settlement with Syngenta, the Court certified a new settlement class, which did include plaintiffs and other clients for whom Watts Guerra had filed individual suits. Plaintiffs had the opportunity but chose not to opt out of that settlement class. Thus, plaintiffs and all other settlement class members will recover from the settlement proceeds on the same basis, pursuant to the same formulas, whether or not they retained their own counsel or filed individual lawsuits. Therefore, because plaintiffs will not recover less than others, defendants argue that plaintiffs were not injured by any inability to proceed as part of a class action.[5]

         Defendants also argue that plaintiffs will not be injured by any “double dip” with respect to attorney fees. Plaintiffs allege that they entered into contingent fee contracts with defendants, and they have not alleged that they have yet paid any attorney fees to defendants. Pursuant to this Court's orders, Watts Guerra and the other defendants will receive attorney fees only from the courts' attorney fee awards from the settlement funds, and defendants are in fact prohibited from collecting any other fees from their clients' settlement proceeds. Thus, plaintiffs will effectively pay no more in attorney fees than any other settlement class member who has filed a claim for proceeds, and therefore any wrongful conduct by defendants did not result in any greater fee deduction for plaintiffs. Defendants further argue that they could not collect on their contingent fee contracts with plaintiffs at any rate because plaintiffs have terminated those contracts; and they have now disavowed any possible claim for an attorney lien on their clients' settlement proceeds or for fees under a quantum meruit theory.

         The Court agrees with defendants that, for the reasons just stated, plaintiffs have not suffered and will not suffer any injury of the types alleged in the complaint. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, plaintiffs have not identified a particular injury in fact resulting from the alleged misconduct. Instead, plaintiffs have made seven arguments in opposing dismissal, none of which has merit.

         First, plaintiffs insist that they are not making an objection to the settlement or to the requests for attorney fees; rather, they seek disgorgement of any fees that defendants eventually receive from the attorney fee award allocation. Plaintiffs therefore argue that they have not waived their claims by failing to file a timely objection to the settlement or to defendants' fee petitions. That position addresses ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.