In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2002.

Decision Date02 December 2008
Docket NumberMDL No. 2002.
Citation588 F.Supp.2d 1366
PartiesIn re: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
CourtJudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL,* DAVID R. HANSEN and W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in the District of Minnesota action and plaintiff in one Eastern District of Pennsylvania action have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation as follows: (1) plaintiff in the District of Minnesota action moves for centralization in the District of Minnesota; and (2) plaintiff in one Eastern District of Pennsylvania action moves for centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in two other actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania support centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Responding defendants support centralization in the District of Minnesota or, alternatively, the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff in a potentially related action pending in the District of New Jersey supports centralization of only those actions relating to processed egg products in the District of Minnesota, and the moving District of Minnesota plaintiff now agrees that only actions relating to processed egg products, and not shell eggs, should be included in centralized proceedings.

This litigation currently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A and pending in two districts, two actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one action in the District of Minnesota.1

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that all of the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of all actions under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of eggs and/or processed egg products sold in the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Plaintiffs opposed to the centralization of all actions in this docket argue, inter alia, that (1) the actions relating to shell eggs involve a separate product and a separate conspiracy involving supply reduction, rather than market allocation; (2) the actions relating to shell eggs focus on a variety of alleged acts by a trade association that are unrelated to the processed egg products actions; and (3) among the defendants in the shell eggs actions are companies that only produce shell eggs. Based upon the Panel's precedents and for the following reasons, we respectfully disagree with these arguments. A complete identity of the parties is not required for centralization under Section 1407, and the alleged conspiratorial conduct includes many vertically integrated egg producers and processors. Moreover, it has been stated that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania plaintiffs plan on incorporating many of the allegations made in the processed egg products actions within their forthcoming...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. United Egg Producers (In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 20, 2011
    ...the supply of eggs and egg products and thereby affect the domestic prices of those goods. See In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 588 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L.2008). Some of those cases also include various state law claims against the Defendants. Because this Kansas action h......
  • In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2002.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 20, 2012
    ...supply of eggs and egg products and thereby affect the domestic prices of those goods. See In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 588 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L.2008). The plaintiffs are direct purchasers (such as grocery stores, commercial food manufacturers, restaurants, other fo......
  • In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2002
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 19, 2012
    ...of eggs and egg products and thereby affect the domestic prices of those goods. See In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2008). The plaintiffs are direct purchasers (such as grocery stores, commercial food manufacturers, restaurants, other food s......
  • In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2002
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 16, 2012
    ...of eggs and egg products and thereby affect the domestic pricesPage 2of those goods. See In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2008). The plaintiffs are direct purchasers (such as grocery stores, commercial food manufacturers, restaurants, other f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT