Whether the MDL Panel transfer of Kellogg

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners request a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1407(e) and 1651 and Rule 20 directing the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to reverse or clarify a November 20, 2018 Order denying Petitioners’ request for a writ of mandamus directing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) to vacate an August 1 transfer order sending Kellogg, et al. v. Watts Guerra, LLP, et al., from the District of Minnesota to In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litig. (“Syngenta MDL”) in the District of Kansas. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the MDL Panel may only transfer “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” to any single district for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” Kellogg does not meet any requirements for transfer. The Syngenta MDL is litigation against Syngenta for unreasonable marketing of a genetically-altered corn seed. Pretrial proceedings in the MDL are concluded and a final settlement approval and fee award hearing was held on November 15, 2018. Kellogg is a class action lawsuit by corn growers against their lawyers for racketeering, attorney deceit, and a breach of fiduciary obligations under Minnesota law. Kellogg has no common questions of fact and no shared claims with the cases previously transferred into the Syngenta MDL. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the MDL Panel transfer of Kellogg from Minnesota to the Syngenta MDL for li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued “pretrial proceedings” is a “judicial usurpation of power [and] a clear abuse of discretion,” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004), that requires the Court to grant mandamus relief, when: (a) Kellogg shares “no common questions of fact” with the Syngenta lawsuits consolidated in the MDL; (b) the MDL pretrial proceedings are concluded; and (c) Kellogg presents Minnesota claims addressing Minnesota public policy, such as the regulation of attorney misconduct in Minnesota. 2. Whether the court administering the Syngenta MDL has jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to police individual contingent fee contracts between Kellogg class members and the Respondent lawyers when Rule 23 does not grant jurisdiction for a court to award fees to lawyers other than counsel who worked for the benefit of the class, typically as a percentage of the common fund. 83. Whether the court administering the Syngenta MDL can exercise inherent authority to police individual contingent fee contracts between Kellogg class members and the Respondent lawyers when there is another lawsuit in an appropriate forum — Kellogg in Minnesota — challenging the validity and ethics of the contracts.