A Minnesota farmer who allegedly suffered economic injuries because of Syngenta Corporation’s actions is seeking to keep his lawsuit in state court rather than join a multidistrict litigation in federal court.

Plaintiff Arnold T. is a Minnesota corn farmer who–like many other corn farmers—is pursuing litigation against Syngenta for allegedly promoting and selling a strain of genetically modified corn known as Viptera, or MIR162, before getting approval for the GMO trait by the Chinese government.

Background on Syngenta Viptera Rejection

Because China had not approved Viptera corn for import, the country rejected tons of U.S. corn shipments. Even shipments that contained only a trace amount of Viptera MIR162 corn were rejected. According to the Syngenta lawsuit:

“Because the corn was commingled, there was no way to separate non-MIR162 corn, which could be exported, from MIR162 corn, which could not. This prevented the general export of U.S. corn to those markets that had not approved MIR162 corn for import. This resulted in a market-wide decrease in U.S. corn prices. Plaintiff incurred substantial losses arising from these price depressions.”

Soon after his shipment was rejected, Arnold sued Syngenta. Arnold asserted only state law claims against the GMO corn manufacturer, including negligence, tortious  interference with prospective economic advantage, public nuisance, and violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Following Arnold’s filing of the Syngenta lawsuit, the company had his case removed from state court to federal court.

Syngenta based their removal on the common law of foreign relations, arguing that China’s role in the loss of an American corn farmer’s profits raised a federal question appropriate for a federal, rather than a state, court of law.

Plaintiff Seeks Syngenta Case Be Remanded

Arnold is fighting this removal and is seeking to have his Syngenta lawsuit remanded back to state court. Arnold’s Motion to Remand to State Court says that “simply put, this is a case between two Minnesota-based parties regarding the application of Minnesota law.”

Arnold and his legal representatives claim that Syngenta’s removal of this GMO corn lawsuit was based on tenuous grounds and is simply an attempt to force Arnold into pursuing his individual Syngenta lawsuit through the larger Syngenta MDL, which is more convenient for Syngenta Corp. As a result, Arnold alleges his Syngenta corn lawsuit was improperly removed to federal court.

Arnold’s motion to remand was filed in February of this year. A decision has not yet been made on whether to remand the case to Minnesota state court or to keep it as part of the Syngenta MDL in federal court.

The Syngenta Corn Lawsuit is Case No. 0:15-CV-00272-DWF-LIB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.