govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00813-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
RANDALL KING, et al., on behalf of 
themselves and others similarly situated 
 
  Plaintiffs,  
 
 v.  
 
MONSANTO COMPANY 
 
  Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 No. 4:26-CV-813 HEA 
 
  
 
 
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER  
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. 
No, 12] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 25]. For the reasons set forth 
below, the Motions will be granted. 
This matter was removed from the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis by 
Craig Boylan, David Childress, Zavier Estrada, Lori Ann Fain, Donna Mason, 
Frederick O’Neill, Edward Rankin, William Robbins, William Szabo, and Patricia 
Veal, who are self-styled “Objector Defendants.” These “Objectors” claim this 
Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Both Plaintiff and Defendant 
have moved to remand the action. 
On February 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against 
Monsanto in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, King v. Monsanto 
Case: 4:26-cv-00813-HEA     Doc. #:  93     Filed: 06/17/26     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
Co., No. 2622-CC00325, seeking approval of a proposed nationwide class 
settlement of Roundup-related claims. The Class Action Petition names five 
individual Plaintiffs and a single Defendant, Monsanto. 
On March 4, 2026, the Missouri court entered a Preliminary Approval 
Order, directed a nationwide notice program, and set deadlines for opt-outs and 
objections, with a final approval hearing scheduled for July 9, 2026. The Missouri 
court expressly stated that it had made no final decision on approval and that 
objectors could raise their arguments through the objection and final-approval 
process. See Exhibit 2 to Objectors’ Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at 3–4. 
On May 21, 2026, Objectors filed objections in the Missouri court and, the 
next day, filed the Notice of Removal in this Court. Objectors have also filed a 
motion to stay proceedings in this Court pending a ruling on transfer to the MDL.  
The Objectors attempt to “realign” themselves as defendants in this case  
classify themselves as “the true defendants” because according to them, they are 
the only ones who oppose the relief that the named parties want, that being a 
settlement of class action Round Up claims.  
Removal of an action by people who are not defendants in the action is not 
authorized. Section 1441(a) of Title 28 states that an action “may be removed by 
the defendant or the defendants.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).(emphasis added). The text 
“specifically limits the ability to remove to the ‘defendant or the defendants,’ and 
Case: 4:26-cv-00813-HEA     Doc. #:  93     Filed: 06/17/26     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
contains no language allowing mistakenly omitted parties, wrongly excluded 
parties, or any other type of non-defendant to remove an action to federal court.” 
Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 
23 F.4th 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2022). Objectors are not defendants in the action and 
have no basis upon which to remove it. The Corut, therefore lacks jurisdiction and 
the case must be remanded 
 Accordingly,  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. 
No, 12] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 25] are granted. 
IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit 
Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.  
An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Opinion, 
Memorandum and Order.  
Dated this 17
th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
     
     ________________________________ 
           HENRY EDWARD AUTREY 
     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
Case: 4:26-cv-00813-HEA     Doc. #:  93     Filed: 06/17/26     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight