Source: http://cornsuits.com/what-is-your-plan-for-bringing-nebraska-farmers-gmo-corn-lawsuits-against-syngenta/
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 04:50:27
Document Index: 69500669

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 541', '§ 542', '§ 1441', '§ 1332', '§1407', '§ 1']

Nebraska Farmers' GMO Corn Lawsuits Against Syngenta
What is Your Plan for Bringing Nebraska Farmers’ GMO Corn Lawsuits Against Syngenta? July 13, 2015 By Mikal Watts Leave a Comment According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Agricultural Statistics Service (NAAS), in its October 10, 2014 report entitled Crop Production, http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/crop1014.pdf, Nebraska was the number three corn producing state in the United States in 2014, with its corn farmers working over 9,300,000 acres of farmland to produce 1.58 billion bushels of corn, or 10.94% of all corn produced in the United States.
Generally, Nebraska has a four-year statute of limitations. Nebraska Revised Statute 25-207 provides in relevant part that “[t]he following actions can only be brought within four years: (1) An action for trespass upon real property; (2) an action for taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property; (3) an action for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated…” Accordingly, recovery for loss of a crop was limited to a period of four years before the action was brought. Wischmann v. Raikes, 168 Neb. 728, 97 N.W.2d 551 (1959).
Although the statute of limitations in Minnesota is six years, Nebraska farmers filing GMO corn lawsuits in the state of Minnesota don’t get the benefit of this statute. Indeed, Minnesota has a “borrowing statute,” providing that, if a claim is “substantively based upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies.” M.S.A. § 541.31.
Nebraska farmers and grain elevators can file suit in the state courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota where Syngenta is based. M.S.A. § 542.09 (“in which one or more of the defendants reside when the action is begun.”). Syngenta may not remove the corn lawsuits to federal court based on the diversity of citizenship between the parties, because Syngenta has been sued in its home state, and the federal statute governing the “removal of civil actions,” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), provides that “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under § 1332 (a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” While Syngenta has sought to remove these cases anyway based on the federal common law of foreign relations, plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand back to state court, and expect that motion to be granted.
The farmers may also file suit in any federal court in their own state; however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(a)(“When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.”), such cases have been, and will continue to be transferred to Kansas City, Kansas, where Judge John W. Lungstrum is overseeing MDL 2591, In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation. Every federal court case in the country will be consolidated into this Kansas City MDL proceeding.
Since Nebraska cases are to be filed in Minnesota, the question arises, “which state’s law will apply to those cases?” For corn litigation filed in Minnesota state court, where no conflict of law question has been raised, Minnesota law will govern. See Christian v. Birch, 763 N.W.2d 50, 55-57 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). But when a party asserts that a case brought in Minnesota may have a significant relationship to more than one state, the Minnesota court must then consider whether there is a choice-of-law issue. Id. (citing William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws § 1(c) (3rd ed. 2002) (stating that “[w]henever a legal problem involves incidents or issues concerning more than one state, a court must determine which state’s legal rules should control”)). The choice of law inquiry, of course, only arises if the conflicting rules of law are substantive, rather than procedural. See Danielson v. Nat’l Supply Co., 670 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. 2003). Only if the issue implicates substantive law, does the choice of law analysis proceed; where the law at issue is procedural, “Minnesota follows the almost universal rule that matters of procedure and remedies are governed by the law of the forum state.” Id. at 5; see also Schwan’s Sales Enters., Inc. v. SIG Pack, Inc., 476 F.3d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 2007)(“Minnesota courts generally apply their state’s own procedure and remedies in all cases involving conflicts of laws, whether the parties have a choice-of-law agreement or not.”).
Therefore, it is anticipated that with respect to substantive law matters, the Minnesota court will consider together all legal briefing and motions concerning the substantive law of Nebraska cases, and issue rulings based upon the substantive law of the state of Nebraska. However, the procedural law of Minnesota will apply to cases filed in the state courts of Minnesota.