# Treehouse Foods, Inc. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.

> District Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10332419

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** May 26, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10332419

## Opinion text

USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT .
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LECT ONICOLES RILED «
wa nn nn nnn nnn nnn naan nn nanan nnn -----X DOC #: sf
: DATE FILED: 5/26/2021
IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN :
SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE ANTITRUST :
LITIGATION :
: 14-md-2542 (VSB)
This Document Concerns All Related Actions:
wa nn nn nnn nnn nnn naan nn nanan nnn -----X ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
I am in receipt of the conditional objection to the proposed settlement between the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) and Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Keurig” or
“Defendant”) submitted by Plaintiffs TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm
Foods, Inc. (collectively, “TreeHouse”) and JBR, Inc. (“JBR” and, together with TreeHouse,
“Competitor Plaintiffs”) on May 14, 2021. (Doc. 1326.) I am also in receipt of the responses in
opposition filed by Keurig, (Doc. 1331), and the IPPs, (Doc. 1339), on May 21, 2021.
Competitor Plaintiffs note that their filing “serve[s] as a formal notice of opt-out from the
Proposed Settlement.” (Doc. 1326.) “Class members who opt-out of the settlement extinguish
their ability to object to it and those objections need not be considered.” Stinson v. City of N.Y.,
256 F. Supp. 3d 293, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); see also Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 16-cv-8412
(AJN), 2018 WL 2324076, at * 7 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018) (“If an individual opts out of a
settlement, he no longer has standing to challenge the settlement.”).
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Competitor Plaintiffs’ conditional objection, (Doc. 1326), is DENIED
for lack of standing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal at Document 1328 is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 26, 2021
New York, New York / on.

Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10332419. Public record. Not legal advice.