Sims et al v. Bayer CropScience LP et al
TRANSFER ORDER re: MDL 1811 transferring this case to the U.S. District Court, Eastern Distrct of Missouri. Signed by John G. Heyburn, II, Chairman of the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (thd)
Case: 4:06-md-01811-CDP 1811 #: 4162 Filed: 05/19/11 Page: Page 1 of 2 #: 106445
Case MDL No. Doc. Document 242 Filed 05/19/11 1 of 2 PageID
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
By: David L. Braun
For the United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
IN RE: GENETICALLY MODIFIED RICE
Tommy Sims, et al. v. Bayer CropScience LP, et al.,
E.D. Arkansas, C.A. No. 2:11-cv-00033
MDL No. 1811
Before the entire Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs move to vacate our order that
conditionally transferred their action to MDL No. 1811. Defendants Bayer Corp.; Bayer CropScience
Holding, Inc.; and Bayer CropScience LP (collectively Bayer) oppose the motion.
After considering all arguments of counsel, we find that this action involves common questions
of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 1811, inasmuch as plaintiff alleges harm from
the contamination of commercial long grain rice stocks with genetically modified rice. We also find that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. Moreover, transfer of this action is warranted for reasons set out in our original order
directing centralization in this docket. In that order, we held that the Eastern District of Missouri was
an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding Bayer’s role in causing
the contamination of commercial rice stocks with genetically modified rice. See In re Genetically
Modified Rice Litigation, 466 F.Supp.2d 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2006).
Plaintiffs do not dispute that their action shares questions of fact with the actions already pending
in MDL No. 1811. Plaintiffs instead base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of
their motion to remand the action to state court, asserting that the Eastern District of Arkansas court is
best positioned to rule upon the motion. As we have often held, the pendency of a motion to remand
generally is not a good reason to deny or delay transfer.1 Plaintiffs can present their motion for remand
to state court to the transferee judge, who, as defendants note, already has similar motions to remand
to state court – including one brought by attorneys for plaintiffs – pending before her in other MDL No.
Judge Barbara S. Jones did not participate in the decision of this matter.
We also note that Panel Rule 2.1(d) expressly provides that the pendency of a conditional
transfer order does not in any way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject
action is pending. Between the date a remand motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action
to the MDL is finalized, a court wishing to rule upon that motion generally has adequate time in
which to do so.
Case: 4:06-md-01811-CDP 1811 #: 4162 Filed: 05/19/11 Page: Page 2 of 2 #: 106446
Case MDL No. Doc. Document 242 Filed 05/19/11 2 of 2 PageID
-21811 cases. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales
Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred to
the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Catherine
D. Perry for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
John G. Heyburn II
Kathryn H. Vratil
Frank C. Damrell, Jr.
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Paul J. Barbadoro
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?