Behrend, Behrend & Knittel Farms et al v. Monsanto Company

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion to Stay. All proceedings in this action are therefore STAYED and all current deadlines are VACATED pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BEHREND, BEHREND & KNITTEL
FARMS; COMA FARMS, L.L.C; and
MONTY & CAROLENE FUNK
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a COUNTY LINE
FARMS; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

Case No. 4:13-cv-00250-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 29). For the reasons
explained below, the Court will grant the motion and stay these proceedings pending a
decision by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation.
DICUSSION
In June of this year, plaintiffs sued Monsanto Company, alleging damages related
to Monsanto’s field trials of genetically engineered wheat. See Compl., Dkt. 1. Fourteen

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

other, similar actions have been filed around the country and plaintiffs have moved the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to coordinate and transfer all cases to a single
forum. Monsanto agrees that the matters are appropriate for consolidation. The parties
disagree as to the appropriate transferee forum, but nobody is arguing that the District of
Idaho is the appropriate forum. The Panel will hear argument on the motion to transfer
on September 26, 2013.
Meanwhile, in this case, Monsanto has moved to dismiss the complaint. See Dkt.
28. Plaintiffs’ response is due September 6, 2013. Plaintiffs argue that unless this case is
stayed, they will be substantially prejudiced by duplicative motion practice. More
specifically, they indicate that if the cases are transferred and consolidated, they will file
an amended complaint, which may contain new or different claims. Monsanto, on the
other hand, generally asserts it will be prejudiced if the Court imposes a stay.
The motion to transfer “does not affect or suspend orders or pretrial
proceedings . . . or limit the jurisdiction” of this court. JPML Rule 2.1(d). However,
“[t]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). To
determine whether it should exercise its discretion to stay a case, the district court
considers: (1) whether staying the action serves judicial economy; and (2) the potential
prejudice to the parties. See, e.g., Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.
Supp. 2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

The Court finds that a brief stay will not prejudice Monsanto and, by contrast, will
serve the interests of judicial economy and prevent an unnecessary hardship to the
plaintiff. A transfer seems quite likely, as there are fifteen actions pending around the
country and both parties agree that transfer and consolidation are appropriate. Under
these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to force the parties to press ahead with the
briefing schedule on Monsanto’s motion to dismiss in this case. If the Panel denies the
transfer, Monsanto may promptly move to lift the stay and resume briefing on its motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 29) is GRANTED. All proceedings in this
action are therefore STAYED and all current deadlines are VACATED
pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation.
(2) The parties shall notify the Court of the Panel’s decision within seven days of
its ruling.

DATED: August 30, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3