In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    Appellate Case: 20-3257     Document: 010110754124       Date Filed: 10/17/2022 Court
    United    States       of1Appeals
    Page:
    Tenth Circuit
    October 17, 2022
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       Clerk of Court
    _______________________________________
    IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162                          No. 20-3257
    CORN LITIGATION (KELLOGG                (D.C. No. 2:14-MD-02591-JWL-JPO)
    FARMERS).                                             (D. Kan.)
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    _________________________________
    Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    This case involves a group of corn producers (the Kellogg farmers)
    who filed individual suits against an agricultural business (Syngenta AG)
    and then sought to intervene in a separate class action filed against
    Syngenta. Through intervention in the class action, the Kellogg farmers
    wanted to oppose the disbursement of a fee award to their former attorneys.
    The Kellogg farmers claimed that their former attorneys had forfeited their
    attorney fees by violating federal and state statutes, engaging in fraud, and
    breaching fiduciary duties.
    The district court denied the Kellogg farmers’ motion to intervene. In
    denying the motion, the court noted that it had already dismissed the
    *
    This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
    under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
    But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
    otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
    Appellate Case: 20-3257   Document: 010110754124   Date Filed: 10/17/2022   Page: 2
    Kellogg farmers’ claims against their former attorneys. Because the
    dismissal had not been stayed, the Kellogg farmers no longer had an
    interest in the fees disbursed to their former attorneys. So the court didn’t
    allow the Kellogg farmers to intervene in the class action. The court also
    denied the Kellogg farmers’ motion for recusal. The Kellogg farmers appeal
    the district court’s decisions (1) declining to recuse and (2) disallowing
    intervention.
    In a related appeal, we affirmed the dismissal of the Kellogg farmers’
    claims and the decision not to recuse. In light of our opinion in the related
    appeal, we affirm the denial of the Kellogg farmers’ motions for recusal and
    intervention. 1
    Entered for the Court
    Per Curiam
    1
    In appealing the denial of intervention, the Kellogg farmers also
    assert that the fees to their attorneys are disputed and must be held in
    escrow until appeals have been exhausted here and in the Supreme Court.
    But the Kellogg farmers do not cite any authority for this argument, and an
    unstayed judgment normally takes effect despite a pending appeal. See
    Coleman v. Tollefson, 
    575 U.S. 532
    , 539 (2015) (“Unless a court issues a
    stay, a trial court’s judgment (say, dismissing a case) normally takes effect
    despite a pending appeal.”). We thus reject the Kellogg farmers’ argument
    for intervention based on a continued dispute over the attorney fees.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-3257

Filed Date: 10/17/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/17/2022