Some lawyers (I'll call them "objecting lawyers") say that they got wind of an effort by Monsanto to pay a tort plaintiff to appeal a claim that the plaintiff lost in federal district court. Why? According to the objecting lawyers, because Monsanto wants to keep the case alive to try to obtain a Monsanto-favorable federal-preemption ruling on appeal. The appeal, No. 21-10994, is pending in the Eleventh Circuit.
The objecting lawyers have filed these papers (including a motion, a letter brief, and a declaration), which I urge you to read in full. Here is a brief excerpt:
The issues raised in the attached letter brief and accompanying declaration address the "settlement" agreement between the Appellant and Appellee in Carson, which directly impacts the justiciability of this appeal. Indeed, as explained in the attached letter and accompanying declaration, the Carson appeal is being prosecuted in bad faith. The Appellee (Monsanto) is paying the Appellant (Carson) to appeal a decision that the Appellee already won in the District Court because the Appellee is hoping to secure favorable appellate precedent in this Court. This pay-to-appeal scheme is fundamentally improper and must be brought to the Court's attention.
I hope that the Eleventh Circuit demands, at a minimum, the public filing of the alleged settlement agreement between Monsanto and the plaintiff.
Questions: 1. Is the alleged settlement agreement ethical? Decent? Good for America?
2. If you were Monsanto's lawyer would you participate in a deal like the one the objecting lawyers allege occurred here?
3. Is the appeal, as it is now apparently presented to the Eleventh Circuit, a case or controversy? Or Is it a "feigned case" that is no longer justiciable?
