Opinion ID: 219871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crawfish litigation

Text: Litigation concerning the decline in the Louisiana crawfish industry has been proceeding in the Louisiana state courts for some time. Because some of this state litigation is relevant to our case, we provide a brief summary before turning to the case at hand. In December 1999, a class of crawfish farmers sued Bayer and others in Louisiana state court. The farmers' class action settled in 2004. In 2000, a group of crawfish buyers and processors, including Beaucoup Crawfish, sued Bayer and others under the LPLA in Louisiana state court (the Phillips litigation). [4] The claims asserted in the Phillips litigation are essentially identical to the claims asserted in this case. After trial in July 2007, a jury found Bayer liable to three test plaintiffs. Bayer appealed, asserting that its duty not to harm the farmers' crawfish did not extend to crawfish buyers and processors. A five-judge panel of a Louisiana court of appeal reversed the judgments. The five-judge panel reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to prove a proprietary interest in the crawfish crop destroyed by the use of ICON. Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., 10 So.3d 339, 344 (La.Ct. App.), writ denied, 21 So.3d 284 (La.2009), reh'g not considered, 24 So.3d 871 (La. 2010). Back at the trial court, Bayer moved for summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs. Relying on the five-judge panel's decision, the trial court granted the motions on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to show a proprietary interest in the farmers' crawfish. This time the plaintiffs appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in applying a bright-line proprietary interest requirement. According to the plaintiffs, the trial court instead should have used a multi-factor duty-risk analysis to determine the scope of Bayer's duty of care. A three-judge panel of the Louisiana court of appeal reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., ___ So.3d ___, 2011 WL 1773269 (La.Ct.App. May 11, 2011). [5] The three-judge panel cho[s]e not to apply the law of the case doctrine and decline[d] to follow the decision of the five-judge panel. Id. ___ So.2d at ___ _ ___, at -5. The three-judge panel reasoned that the five-judge panel's decision was contrary to the law because it imposed a bright-line litmus test mandating proprietary interest in damaged property as a prerequisite to recovery. Id. ___ So.2d at ___, ___, at , 7. The three-judge panel thus remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to apply a multi-factor, policy-driven, duty-risk analysis to determine the scope and extent of Bayer's duties under the LPLA. Id. ___ So.2d at ___, at . The three-judge panel did not, however, determine or even speculate on the result of the required duty-risk analysis. Id. ___ So.2d at ___, at . Meanwhile, in December 2008, Wiltz filed this putative class action in Louisiana state court after she was denied leave to intervene in the Phillips litigation. Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., 32 So.3d 1134, 1138 (La.Ct.App.), writ denied, 38 So.3d 325 (La.2010). As mentioned, the LPLA claims asserted in this case are essentially the same as the claims asserted in the Phillips litigation. Bayer removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1453. After removal, plaintiff Beaucoup Crawfish intervened as a second putative class representative. Bayer then filed a motion to abstain pending resolution of the Phillips litigation as well as motions for summary judgment against both Wiltz and Beaucoup Crawfish. The district court denied Bayer's motion to abstain but granted both motions for summary judgment because the plaintiffs' economic loss was unaccompanied by damage to their own person or property. The plaintiffs appealed. [6] For the following reasons, we affirm.