Bruce Farms Partnership et al v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 79 MOTION to Strike Putative Class Claims from Stayed Complaints filed by Defendant Monsanto Company - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants DuPont and Monsanto's motions to strike putative class claims from stayed complaints (#210, #211) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/23/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: DICAMBA HERBICIDES
LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This document relates to:
B&L Farms Partnership, et al.
Bruce Farms Partnership, et al.
Claassen, et al.
Landers, et al.
Smokey Alley Farm Partnership, et al.
Forest River Farms
Pic

MDL No. 2820

Case No. 4:17cv2418
Case No. 1:18cv26
Case No. 1:18cv28
Case No. 1:17cv20
Case No. 4:17cv2031
Case No. 4:18cv181
Case No. 4:18cv533

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants DuPont and Monsanto’s motions to
strike putative class claims from stayed complaints. (#210, #211.) The plaintiffs filed
Master Complaints in this case on August 1, 2018. According to the Case Management
Order (“CMO”) entered on July 23, 2018, any current plaintiff in the MDL that is not
named in a Master Complaint could (1) conform its pleading to a Master Complaint by
filing a Notice to Conform, (2) dismiss its complaint without prejudice, or (3) do nothing
and have its case stayed. Of the cases currently stayed by operation of the CMO, seven
of them include putative class claims. Defendant Monsanto has moved to strike the class
claims from those stayed case complaints. Defendant DuPont has moved to strike the
class claims from the only complaint that names it as a defendant (Smokey Alley Farm
Partnership, No. 4:17cv2031).
The matter was fully briefed just before this Court held a status conference on
October 19, 2018. At that conference, the Court indicated that it planned to deny

1

Monsanto’s motion. Having now read all the briefing on both motions, the Court will
deny both motions.
First, defendants argue that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires the Court
to address class certification “at an early practicable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A).
Because the classes proposed by the seven stayed cases cannot be certified while they are
stayed, defendants insist that the class allegations should be dismissed. However,
defendants cite no MDL cases that involve stayed class claims. Defendants’ authority,
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800, 1804 (2018), does not call for the dismissal
of the stayed class claims. Rather, that case observes that the recent changes to Rule
23(c) were “made to allow greater leeway, more time for class discovery, and additional
time to ‘explore designation of class counsel’…rather than deny class certification.” Id.
Further, as plaintiffs point out, the Court’s ruling on class certification for the
Master Crop Damage Complaint will deal with common issues relevant to the stayed
cases. The Court’s rulings on the pending motions to dismiss will likewise be relevant to
the stayed cases. Thus, Monsanto’s arguments regarding the efficiency of the MDL
litigation are unfounded. Although both Monsanto and DuPont argue that they will suffer
prejudice due to delays in discovery, the defendants have received discovery in the form
of the Plaintiff Fact Sheets --- in fact, the Plaintiff Fact Sheets were conceived of at least
in partial response to defendants’ concerns that they would not receive discovery from
the stayed plaintiffs.
Finally, Monsanto and DuPont have cited no authority allowing the Court to
summarily strike class allegations in pending, stayed complaints. Rule 23(d)(1), which
allows the Court to “require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about

2

representation of absent persons and that the action proceed accordingly,” does not
support the extreme approach of striking a stayed complaint’s class allegations.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants DuPont and Monsanto’s motions to
strike putative class claims from stayed complaints (#210, #211) are DENIED.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3