ST. LOUIS — U.S. Magistrate John Bodenhausen has denied plaintiffs' motion to stay in a proposed product-liability class action involving the herbicide dicamba.
Plaintiffs Smokey Alley Farm Partnership and others had sought a stay on proceedings pending the resolution of a motion to transfer and consolidate eight other related cases to a possible multidistrict litigation (MDL), according to the Jan. 3 order from the Eastern District of Missouri.
Defendants including Monsanto, BASF Corp., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. opposed the motion to stay, arguing that transfer to a potential MDL being considered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is not appropriate, and regardless of the JPML's decision, the motions to dismiss would need to be briefed.
Bodenhausen, who handled pretrial matters in the litigation, stated he does not view a stay as "necessarily achieving any efficiency."
"The Court finds that no justifiable reason exists for delaying the briefing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss," he wrote. "While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ desire to await a ruling from the JPML, the timing of the ruling on the MDL motion and the outcome is uncertain."
According to background information in the ruling, Smokey Alley Farm Partnership, Kenneth Loretta Qualls Farm Partnership, McLemore Farms LLC, Qualls Land Co. and Michael Baioni filed a class action in July, asserting Lanham Act, Sherman Act, products liability, public nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict liability, Arkansas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act and civil conspiracy claims with allegations relating to seed products and three herbicides.
The plaintiffs claimed crops were destroyed due to the drift of three dicamba herbicides -- XtendiMax, Engenia and FeXapan -- according to court documents.
The defendants responded with three separate motions to dismiss, but rather than responding to those motions, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November expanding their claims and the number of states involved, dismissing defendant DuPont Pioneer and adding numerous plaintiffs to the action.
In their amended suit, the plaintiffs’ claims include alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws, state tort claims under five different states’ laws, and alleged Lanham Act violations.
On Dec. 12, plaintiffs moved to stay, which was responded to by defendants once again with three separate motions to dismiss, the ruling states.