Adams et al v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER re (13 in 0:17-cv-03708-DSD-HB) Notice (Other), filed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection, L.L.C., (14 in 0:17-cv-03707-DSD-HB) Notice (Other), filed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection, L.L.C., (13 in 0 :17-cv-03778-DSD-HB) Notice (Other), filed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection, L.L.C. (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/19/2017. Associated Cases: 0:17-cv-03707-DSD-HB, 0:17-cv-03708-DSD-HB, 0:17-cv-03778-DSD-HB(DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE: SYNGENTA LITIGATION
This document relates to:
_____________________________
Alan Adams, et al.,

Civil No. 17-3707(DSD/HB)

v.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al.
_____________________________
Ross Alcorn, et al.,

Civil No. 17-3708(DSD/HB)

v.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al.
_____________________________
William Adams, et al.,

Civil No. 17-3778(DSD/HB)

v.
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al.
_____________________________
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the objection to the
notice

of

dismissal

filed

in

the

above-captioned

cases

by

defendants Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta Seeds Inc.
On September 5, 2017, plaintiffs in these cases filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(I).

The

court

terminated

the

cases

accordingly.

Thereafter, Syngenta filed the instant objection arguing that

actions

should

have

been

dismissed

with

prejudice

because

plaintiffs Jonathan Liechty, Paul Skarnagel, William Nohr, Lawrence
Peterson,

and

Charles

Selzer

had

all

previously

brought

and

voluntarily dismissed similar claims in various state courts.

See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice or stipulation
states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the
plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action
based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal
operates as an adjudication on the merits.”).

Syngenta requests

that the court order plaintiffs to show cause why their actions
should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Syngenta’s objection.

Plaintiffs do not oppose

ECF No. 17 in Civ. No. 17-3707.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Syngenta’s objection [ECF No. 14 in Civ. No. 17-3707, ECF

No. 13 in Civ. No. 17-3708, ECF No. 13 in Civ. No. 17-3778] is
sustained; and
2.

The above-captioned matters are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 19, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2