Jossart v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants BASFs and Monsantos motion to strike amended complaints is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/3/18. (MRS)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This document relates to:
Barham, et al.
Billings
Coker
Ellis, et al.
Jossart
Peyton, et al.
Rhodes
Tillman, et al.
Vanalstine

MDL No. 2820

Case No. 1:18cv124
Case No. 1:18cv125
Case No. 1:18cv126
Case No. 1:18cv127
Case No. 1:18cv128
Case No. 1:18cv129
Case No. 1:18cv130
Case No. 1:18cv131
Case No. 1:18cv132

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants BASF and Monsanto’s combined
motion to strike amended complaints filed in the above-captioned cases. (#256.) 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 was 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.
Defendants Monsanto and BASF contend that the above-captioned plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on September 26, 2018 in contravention of this Court’s CMO. The
amended complaints add six new causes of action but deleted E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (and Pioneer Hi-Bred International), collectively “DuPont,” as a defendant,
and a few complaints add a plaintiff, which appears to be an effort to more specifically
identify existing plaintiffs.
1

Plaintiffs respond that they understood their cases were not stayed until the
deadline to file a Notice to Conform had passed and that they were entitled to amend their
complaints as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Further,
plaintiffs note at they were required to and did supply the defendants with discovery in
the form of Plaintiff Fact Sheets, suggesting to them that a stay was not yet in effect.
As noted, DuPont is no longer named as a defendant in the amended complaints,
and DuPont therefore opposes the Monsanto and BASF defendants’ motion to strike.
The Court declines to strike the amended complaints of the above-captioned
plaintiffs. The amending plaintiffs added a cause of action under the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that could not be pleaded on a class-wide basis. The
other amendments simply conform the complaints to the matters pleaded by the
Tennessee plaintiffs in the Crop Damage Master Complaint. This Court’s rulings
regarding the Tennessee portions of the Master Complaint will effectively govern these
cases with the exception of the TCPA claims. Moreover, as plaintiffs explained, the
additional parties were added to be consistent with the plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets --- they do
not actually add new or unrelated entities. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that
defendants are not burdened or surprised by the amendments.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants BASF’s and Monsanto’s motion to
strike amended complaints (#256) is DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2