EAST ST. LOUIS - As Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel announced six possible plaintiffs for two trials to shed light on 6,000 claims that weed killer Paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease, she denied a motion to advance a plaintiff from the mass to the front of the line.
Allen Williford and wife Lydia of Florida moved for a trial setting last June and Rosenstengel disposed of the motion on Jan. 23, the day she set trials this October and April 2026.
She declared herself “reluctant to overhaul a carefully crafted case management process so that one out of more than 6,000 cases can race to trial.”
“The Willifords are correct that the court can establish a separate litigation track for their case," she wrote.
“But whether such an order comports with sound case management practices is an entirely separate question.”
Tayjes Shah of the Miller Firm in Virginia represents the Willifords.
Shah sued paraquat producer Syngenta, former producer Chevron, and Florida business Council Oxford at Florida state court in 2021.
He claimed Allen Williford mixed and sprayed paraquat on a farm from 1967 to 1992.
Syngenta and Chevron removed the suit to district court and a judge remanded it to state court, finding diversity jurisdiction didn’t exist because the Willifords sued Council Oxford.
A state court judge dismissed Chevron for failure to serve the complaint in a timely fashion.
The judge set trial in January 2024 but in 2023 the judge denied punitive damages.
Shah dismissed Council Oxford and Syngenta removed the complaint to district court again, this time without dispute.
Removal led to transfer to the national litigation in Rosenstengel’s court.
Shah claimed in his motion for trial date that there wasn’t a case at a more advanced stage.
“Unlike other cases in this coordinated proceeding, the parties completed fact and expert discovery before the case was transferred to this court," he wrote.
He claimed a date for the Willifords would promote efficient and final resolution of other cases.
He claimed plaintiff leadership “does not take a position on the relief sought here.”
Syngenta counsel Ragan Naresh of Washington responded that, “Plaintiffs fought tooth and nail to keep this case out of this court.”
He claimed their Florida date promised to be the first in the nation.
He claimed they chose to dismiss the Florida defendant and permit removal and transfer.
He claimed the case was far from ready for trial.
He claimed Florida rules don’t require expert reports and the Willifords chose not to serve any.
Rosenstengel stated in her denial order that the case doesn’t present a unique theory or a party like a competitor that would warrant individual treatment.
She found the distinctive features of the case could undermine rather than advance the goal of consolidated proceedings.
She found Shah’s firm represents more than 200 plaintiffs in her court and state courts.
“Thus, resolution of dispositive motions and a trial in this case could benefit other plaintiffs who are represented by the same counsel," she wrote.
She wrote that from the beginning she has sought to advance a process that could help the parties determine the strengths and weaknesses of claims in the broader pool.
She found priority for the Willifords would divert resources from representative cases serving as a common springboard for decisions on substance, procedure and discovery.