If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Arthur G. Boylan, Blake H. Butner, Daniel F. Church, Ryan R. Cox, John M. Degnan, Christopher L. Goodman, Chad J. Hintz, Philip Kaplan, Matthew G. Koehler, Richard A. Lind, Joao Medeiros, Kelly A. Ricke, Steven H. Schwartz, Kathryn M. Short, Richard J. Thomas, Teresa M. Young

Description: Wichita, Kansas civil litigation lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on breach of contract theories.


The appellants are some of the corn producers who took the first track, filing individual actions. (We call these corn producers the "Kellogg farmers.") The Kellogg farmers alleged that their former attorneys had failed to disclose the benefits of participating as class members, resulting in excessive legal fees and exclusion from class proceedings. These allegations led the Kellogg farmers to sue the attorneys who had provided representation or otherwise assisted in these cases. The suit against the attorneys included claims of common-law fraud, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) and Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, and breach of fiduciary duty.

While this suit was pending in district court, Syngenta settled the class actions and thousands of individual suits, including those brought by the Kellogg farmers. The settlement led to the creation of two pools of payment by Syngenta: one pool for a newly created class consisting of all claimants, the other pool for those claimants' attorneys. For this settlement, the district court allowed the Kellogg farmers to participate in the new class and to recover on an equal basis with all other claimants.

The settlement eliminated any economic injury to the Kellogg farmers, so the district court dismissed the RICO and common-law fraud claims. The court also dismissed the Kellogg farmers' other claims, reasoning that

• the Kellogg farmers had failed to allege a public benefit from the claims under Minnesota's consumer-protection laws,

• the Kellogg farmers' disobedience of court orders merited dismissal of the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and

• seven other law firms, which had provided assistance, could not have breached a fiduciary duty because they had no attorney client agreements with the Kellogg farmers.

The court not only dismissed these claims but also assessed monetary sanctions against the Kellogg farmers. We uphold these rulings.

* * *


Like most of the other corn producers, the Kellogg farmers sued Syngenta for genetically modifying corn-seed products and commingling these products in the U.S. corn supply. The Kellogg farmers had intended to export much of that corn to China, but the Chinese government refused to import genetically modified corn. That refusal sparked tumbling corn prices and financial disaster for thousands of corn producers like the Kellogg farmers. Corn producers reacted by filing thousands of suits against Syngenta, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation transferred the suits to the District of Kansas for pretrial proceedings.

As the suits progressed, the Kellogg farmers began to reconsider the benefits of suing individually rather than participating in the class actions. As the Kellogg farmers reconsidered their litigation strategy, they suspected their former attorneys of inflating the legal fees by touting individual actions and concealing the benefits of class litigation. So the Kellogg farmers retained new counsel and sued in Minnesota federal district court, asserting claims against their former attorneys and seven other law firms that had provided legal assistance. That suit was then transferred to the District of Kansas as part of the multi-district litigation.

* * *


Most of the appellate issues involve the Kellogg farmers' claims against their former attorneys. These issues fall into two categories:

1. Arguments that the district judge should have refrained from ruling on certain issues

2. Arguments that the district judge erred in the rulings that he did make...

* * *


The Kellogg farmers argue that the district judge erred by deciding particular issues rather than leaving them for another court or judge. According to the Kellogg farmers, the district judge

• should not have ruled on the merits because the case had been improperly transferred to the District of Kansas,

• should have recused, and

• lost jurisdiction after the Kellogg farmers had appealed the denial of their motion to recuse.

Outcome:
We lack appellate jurisdiction to review the Multi-District Litigation Panel's transfer of the case to the District of Kansas and reject the Kellogg farmers' procedural challenges involving recusal and jurisdiction in district court. And we affirm

• the dismissal of the claims involving common-law fraud and RICO based on mootness,

• the sanctions requiring monetary payment and dismissing the claim for breach of fiduciary duty,

• the dismissal of the claims under Minnesota's private-attorney general statute, and

• the award of judgment on the pleadings to the seven law firms lacking contractual ties to the Kellogg farmers.

Finally, we deny the Kellogg farmers' motion for judicial notice or supplementation of the record.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: