In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162, No. 20-3257 (10th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 20-3257 Document: 010110754124 FILED United States of1Appeals Date Filed: 10/17/2022 Court Page: Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _______________________________________ IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION (KELLOGG FARMERS). October 17, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court No. 20-3257 (D.C. No. 2:14-MD-02591-JWL-JPO) (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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
