B&L Farms Partnership et al v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 110

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 86 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to FEDERAL COURT IN ARKANSAS filed by Plaintiff Allen Culp, Plaintiff Neil Culp, Plaintiff Jill Culp, Plaintiff Pam Culp, Plaintiff B&L Farms Partnership: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to remand [Doc. 86] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 09/28/2022. (CMH)

Case: 4:17-cv-02418-SNLJ Doc. #: 110 Filed: 09/28/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 933

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
B&L FARMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MDL No. 1:18-md-2820-SNLJ
Indiv. Case No. 4:17-cv-2418-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiffs are crop growers and an herbicide applicator in Arkansas who filed this
lawsuit against defendants Monsanto Company, BASF Corporation, and BASF SE in
Arkansas state court. Defendants removed the matter to federal court in Arkansas and
then successfully moved to transfer the matter to the Eastern District of Missouri, where
the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) In re: Dicamba Herbicides Litigation, No.
1:18md2820, was pending. The MDL is now winding down, as most plaintiffs involved
in the case have settled with defendants. Because the plaintiffs in this case bring related
but substantively different claims against defendants, their claims are not covered by the
global settlement entered into by defendants and most plaintiffs involved in the MDL.
As a result, litigation in this case has begun again. Plaintiffs seek to remand this case
back to the Eastern District of Arkansas [Doc. 86]. Defendants oppose the motion to
remand.
Plaintiffs seek remand back to the Eastern District of Arkansas, which is where
this matter was pending before it was transferred to this Court and the MDL. Notably,

Case: 4:17-cv-02418-SNLJ Doc. #: 110 Filed: 09/28/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 934

Monsanto did not move to transfer the matter to this Court because of the pending MDL.
Rather, Monsanto moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the
grower plaintiffs and Monsanto had agreed upon this District as a forum in the MTSAs.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and argued that the forum selection clause in the MTSA
was unconscionable. Judge Marshall granted the motion to transfer, noting that the
forum selection clause was “reasonable, not unconscionable.” [Doc. 41]
Despite this procedural history, plaintiffs now move to transfer the matter back to
the Eastern District of Arkansas because the “other parties in this Multidistrict Litigation
have settled, [so] there is no reason for this case to remain in Missouri.” [Doc. 86.]
Monsanto opposes the motion for the same reasons it sought to transfer this matter to this
Court to begin with: the plaintiffs agreed to pursue their claims in the Eastern District of
Missouri. The MDL’s winding down is irrelevant. This Court will not override the
parties’ clear contractual language.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand [Doc. 86] is
DENIED.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2022.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2