Bader Farms, Inc. et al v. Monsanto Company
Filing
285
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants motion for summary judgment on damages [#224] is GRANTED in part, and plaintiffs may not seek damages based on their experts $42 million damages calculation.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/26/19. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
BADER FARMS, INC. and
BILL BADER
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONSANTO CO. and
BASF CORP.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ
Case No. 1:16cv299-SNLJ
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On December 20, 2019, this Court entered a memorandum and order [#282]
denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on damages [#224]. This
memorandum and order is an addendum to the December 20 Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Joseph Guenthner opines that plaintiffs will sustain $21
million in damages if they cease operating. Guenthner also makes an “alternative”
calculation that plaintiffs will sustain $42 million in damages if they continue selling
peaches. In their motion for summary judgment on damages, defendants argued that the
Court should grant summary judgment on any claim for alleged future crop injury based
on Guenthner’s $42 million continued-operations calculation. Indeed, plaintiffs have a
duty to minimize their damages; they may not recover amounts that could have been
avoided. Faire v. Burke, 252 S.W.2d 289, 294 (Mo. 1952); Gerst v. Flinn, 615 S.W.2d
628, 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). In Faire, for example, the plaintiff sought damages for
his cotton crop, which was harmed by drift from his neighbor’s pesticide spraying. The
plaintiff said his yield would have been 25 bales, but that he harvested only six bales, so
1
he sought compensation for his lost 19 bales. Evidence showed that his yield would have
been 12.5 bales if he had properly cared for his crop, however. The plaintiff was allowed
to recover only for 12.5 bales and not the 19 bales he sought. Faire, 252 S.W.2d at 294.
Here, plaintiffs may not recover for injuries that could be avoided. As a result, the
Court will grant summary judgment to defendants on the limited matter that plaintiffs
may not seek damages based on Guenthner’s “alternative” $42 million damages
calculation.
The December 20 Memorandum and Order [#282] is otherwise unaffected by this
memorandum and order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants motion for summary judgment on
damages [#224] is GRANTED in part, and plaintiffs may not seek damages based on their
expert’s $42 million damages calculation.
So ordered this 26th day of December, 2019.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?