Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CARGILL, INCORPORATED v. SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., 14-2388. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20150108a81 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge. The Court has pending before it a motion 1 filed by defendant, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. ("Syngenta"), to stay this matter pending transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), a motion 2 to remand filed by plaintiffs, and a motion 3 filed by plaintiffs for leave to file a response to the notice of supplemental authority filed by defendant notifying the Court of the creation of a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for related cases. C
More

ORDER

LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.

The Court has pending before it a motion1 filed by defendant, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. ("Syngenta"), to stay this matter pending transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), a motion2 to remand filed by plaintiffs, and a motion3 filed by plaintiffs for leave to file a response to the notice of supplemental authority filed by defendant notifying the Court of the creation of a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for related cases.

Considering the applicable law, the record, and the parties' briefs, as well as the fact that the above-captioned matter will soon be subject to a conditional transfer order transferring it to the recently established MDL, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion to stay, which will "serve the interests of judicial economy and minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings in related cases." See Austin v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC, No. 13-566, 2013 WL 2632611, at *2 (E.D. La. June 11, 2013) (Africk, J.). Notwithstanding plaintiffs' assertion that they will contest the conditional transfer, the Court concludes that, absent a contrary order by the transferee court, that court is better situated to address the jurisdictional issues raised in the motion to remand. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a response to the notice of supplemental authority is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to stay is GRANTED and that the above-captioned matter is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED until further order of the Court.

The Court DEFERS ruling upon the motion to remand.

FootNotes


1. R. Doc. No. 12.
2. R. Doc. No. 13.
3. R. Doc. No. 42.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer