Whether the MDL Panel transfer of Kellogg from Minnesota to the Syngenta MDL for "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.

3. 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.

Whether the MDL Panel transfer of Kellogg