Kellogg v. Watts Guerra, LLP
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-01082
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Kellogg v. Watts Guerra, LLP, Judge Frank granted a stay, overruled the plaintiffs’ appeal, and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order.
The plaintiffs and defendants are affected. All proceedings and deadlines were stayed pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s transfer decision and any completed transfer; the plaintiffs’ appeal was overruled, and Magistrate Judge Thorson’s order extending the defendants’ time to answer was affirmed.
What happened
In Kellogg v. Watts Guerra, LLP, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deceptively persuaded corn growers to sign 40-percent contingent-fee contracts. The defendants sought to transfer the case to a coordinated federal proceeding involving Syngenta corn litigation and asked the court to pause the case while that request was considered.
The court found that pausing the case would conserve resources and reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings. It also concluded that the defendants faced significant hardship without a stay, while the plaintiffs would face little harm from a temporary delay.
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings and deadlines until ten days after the federal transfer panel decided whether to transfer the case and completed any transfer. He also overruled the plaintiffs’ appeal and affirmed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s order extending the defendants’ time to answer.
The detailed version
- Kellogg v. Watts Guerra, LLP · No. 0:18-cv-01082
- Donovan Frank
- July 16, 2018
Background
The plaintiffs—Kenneth P. Kellogg, Rachel Kellogg, Kellogg Farms, Inc., Roland B. Bromley, and Bromley Ranch, LLC—filed a putative class action against Watts Guerra, LLP and other law firms and individuals. They alleged that the defendants deceptively solicited corn growers to sign 40-percent contingent-fee retainer contracts for individual lawsuits in Minnesota state courts as part of a scheme to collect an unreasonable fee.
The defendants moved to transfer the case to a multidistrict litigation proceeding concerning the Syngenta MIR162 corn litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional transfer order. The plaintiffs opposed that order and moved to vacate it; the panel scheduled a hearing on that request for July 26, 2018.
Separately, certain defendants moved for more time to answer the complaint while the transfer issue was pending. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson granted that request on May 25, 2018. The plaintiffs appealed that order.
Stay analysis
The court explained that district courts have discretion to manage their dockets and pause proceedings. In deciding whether to issue a stay, courts consider the effect on judicial resources, the hardship and unfairness to the party seeking the stay if the case continues, and the prejudice to the opposing party.
The defendants argued that a stay would conserve the parties’ and court’s resources and prevent them from incurring substantial costs for discovery and motion practice before the transfer panel decided whether the case belonged in the multidistrict proceeding. The court agreed that these considerations supported a stay. If the case were transferred, continuing proceedings in Minnesota could require the parties and the court to spend resources on matters that would be handled elsewhere.
The court also concluded that the plaintiffs would suffer little harm from the delay because the defendants sought a stay only until the transfer issue was resolved. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the multidistrict court would not have time or a reason to address their class-certification and discovery requests. It found no reason to suspect that the multidistrict court would not consider those requests if the case were transferred.
Rulings
After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that all three favored a stay. It granted the defendants’ motion to stay. The order stayed all proceedings and deadlines until ten days after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined whether to transfer the action and completed any transfer under federal law.
The court also overruled the plaintiffs’ appeal of Magistrate Judge Thorson’s May 25, 2018 order and affirmed that order.
The opinion was signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.