In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________________
IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162
CORN LITIGATION (KELLOGG
FARMERS).
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).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 17, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-3257 Document: 010110754124 Date Filed: 10/17/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
Appellate Case: 20-3257 Document: 010110754124 Date Filed: 10/17/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --