Hammerstrom v. Syngenta AG et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/3/2017 GRANTING 3 Defendants' Consent Motion to Stay. Matter STAYED until 21 days after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determines whether to transfer this action into MDL in District of Kansas. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
GABRIEL HAMMERSTROM,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-1685-JPS
SYNGENTA AG, SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION LLC, and SYNGENTA
SEEDS LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER

On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed in Wisconsin state court a
putative class action under the Lanham Act against Defendants arising from
Defendants’ decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a certain
genetically modified trait that had not been approved for import by the
Chinese government. See (Docket #1-1 and #3-1). Defendants removed the
case to this Court on December 20, 2016. (Docket #1). The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) has established a related multidistrict
litigation (“MDL”) against Defendants in the District of Kansas. (Docket #3
at 1); In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., MDL No. 2591 (J.P.M.L. 2015).
Defendants have filed with the JPML a notice that this action is a potential
tag-along to the MDL. (Docket #3 at 2). Defendants have filed in this Court,
with Plaintiff’s consent, a motion to stay proceedings pending a decision
from the JPML whether to transfer this action into the existing MDL in the
District of Kansas. Id. Such motions have been filed and granted in numerous
similar cases brought in other districts around the country. See id. at 3 & n.3.

In light of the parties’ consent, and because granting a stay under these
circumstances will promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent
litigation results, the Court will grant the motion. See Weinke v. Microsoft
Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 989, 990 (E.D. Wis. 2000) (recognizing that stays pending
MDL transfer decisions are prudent “in the interest of judicial economy and
to avoid inconsistent results”); Wright, Miller & Cooper, 15 Fed. Prac. & Proc.
Juris. § 3866.1 (4th ed. 2016) (stay pending JPML transfer decision is proper
when it would promote “the policies of judicial economy, efficiency, and
consistency that are deeply embodied in the MDL statute”); La. Stadium &
Exposition Dist. v. Finan. Guar. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 09–235, 09–2738, 2009
WL 926982, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2009) (noting that judicial resources would
be wasted if the court “spen[t] time familiarizing itself with the intricacies of
a case. . .that will ultimately be heard by another judge”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ consent motion to stay (Docket #3)
be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be and the same is
hereby STAYED until twenty-one (21) days after the JPML determines
whether to transfer this action into the MDL established in the District of
Kansas and completes any transfer of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2