Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-03066/USCOURTS-ca10-19-03066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 31, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN 

LITIGATION (Kellogg Group)

No. 19-3066

(D.C. No. 2:18-CV-02408-JWL-JPO)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Appellants’ “Memorandum Addressing the 

Finality of the District Court’s March 1, 2019 Judgment, May 21, 2019 Memorandum 

and Order, and August 13, 2019 Memorandum and Order” and Appellants’ “Motion to 

Abate Appeal and Order Requiring Briefing on Finality of District Court Decisions 

Pending Resolution of Rule 60 and 59(e) Motions Before the District Court.” Although 

this court’s September 30, 2019 order specified that “[t]he response to the show cause 

order shall only address the finality issue,” Sept. 30, 2019 Ord. at 1, most of Appellants’ 

Memorandum Addressing Finality is devoted to the merits of Appellants’ claims. 

Nonetheless, the Motion to Exceed is granted. Counsel is cautioned to follow the court’s 

directives. 

Appellants seek review of the district court’s March 1, 2019, May 21, 2019, and 

August 13, 2019 decisions. Proceedings in the district court are ongoing, however. The 

district court dismissed Appellants’ federal and state claims in its March 1, 2019 

memorandum and order after determining that Appellants lacked standing. The district 

Appellate Case: 19-3066 Document: 010110281961 Date Filed: 12/31/2019 Page: 1
2

court entered separate judgment on March 1, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Appellants filed 

a motion to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). By memorandum and order 

dated May 21, 2019, the district court construed Appellants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion 

as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, granted the motion in part, and vacated the March 1, 

2019 judgment in part after determining that dismissal of the state claims for lack of 

standing was in error. The district court left the dismissal of Appellants’ federal claims in 

place. Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions of the 

district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision resolves all claims against all 

parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 

U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (holding that a final decision “ends the litigation on the merits and 

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”) (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Appellants have not established that the district court’s decisions are final or 

immediately appealable at this time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The Motion to Abate is denied. 

All other relief requested is denied.

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-3066 Document: 010110281961 Date Filed: 12/31/2019 Page: 2