Opinion

| hereby certify that the annexed is a true and ca

copy ofa document or an electronic docket enti

file at the United States District Court for the Dis

of Utah. 4 Dig,

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL pene eenaae= oy (i @

on Gary Se □□

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION By | 7 / \

Deputy gler □□□ tS

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER

ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. IID) MDL No. 3167

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in

the District of Utah. This litigation consists of five actions pending in five districts, as listed on

Schedule A. The parties have notified the Panel of a related action pending in the District of

Delaware.'! Responding defendants’ suggest centralization in the Western District of Arkansas or,

alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. In their reply, plaintiffs agree that the Northern

District of Illinois would be a suitable alternative transferee district.

The Panel previously granted centralization of substantially similar actions brought by

plaintiffs against different defendants. See Jn re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No.

II), MDL No. 2977, 509 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2020).2 MDL No. 2977 proceeded for nearly

Judge Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision of this matter.

This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),

7.1, and 7.2.

Mountaire Farms Inc.; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.; Peco Foods, Inc.; House Of

Raeford Farms Inc.; House Of Raeford Farms Of Louisiana, LLC; George’s Inc.; George’s

Chicken, LLC; Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc.; George’s Foods, LLC; George’s Processing, Inc.;

Foster Farms, LLC; Amick Farms, LLC; Case Foods, Inc.; Case Farms Processing, Inc.; Fieldale

Farms Corp.; Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc.; Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC; Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC; Mar-

Jac Poultry, LLC; Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc.; O.K. Foods, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Allen Harim

Foods LLC; Harrison Poultry, Inc.; and Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms.

3 In 2018, we denied centralization of two of the MDL No. 2977 actions because, at that

time, the litigation consisted of only two actions, which were brought by the same plaintiffs against

different defendants. See In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1366

(J.P.M.L. 2018). Plaintiffs’ claims initially were brought in a single action in the Eastern District

of Oklahoma, which were before District of Utah Judge Robert J. Shelby, sitting by designation.

Judge Shelby dismissed two groups of defendants on personal jurisdiction and venue grounds,

(continued)

that defendants agreed not to compete for “Broiler Grow-Out Services,” i.e., the services of

farmers (referred to by the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts with

chicken processors such as defendants (called Integrators). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged an

agreement among defendants not to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another

defendant or co-conspirator. They also challenged as anticompetitive defendants’ submission of

cost information to Agri Stats—a third party—for use in benchmarking reports. All plaintiffs

asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the

same putative nationwide classes of Growers.

After MDL No. 2977 concluded, plaintiffs filed the Eastern District of Oklahoma

action listed on Schedule A against 26 new Integrator defendants. Soon thereafter,

prompted by plaintiffs’ concerns about the need to ensure personal jurisdiction in the event

of an adverse personal jurisdiction ruling in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, they filed

additional suits against subsets of the same Integrator defendants in other districts.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these

actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the District of Utah will

serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient

conduct of this litigation. Like the MDL No. 2977 actions, these actions share factual

questions arising from allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for Broiler Grow-

Out Services. They also challenge as anticompetitive defendants’ submission of cost

information to Agri Stats. Plaintiffs in each action assert the same claims under the Sherman

Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act on behalf of the same putative nationwide classes of

Growers. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial

rulings (including with respect to class certification and evidentiary motion practice); and

conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

We find that the District of Utah is the most appropriate transferee district for this

litigation. Judge Shelby has unparallelled familiarity with the claims and issues in this

litigation, as he presided over the related actions comprising MDL No. 2977 for nearly

eight years. We are confident that Judge Shelby will steer this litigation on an efficient and

prudent course.

leading plaintiffs to file the second action against these two defendant groups. We found that

informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and the courts constituted a preferable

alternative to centralization at that time. Id. at 1367.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to tl

District of Utah and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert

Shelby, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell

Chair

Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly

David C. Norton Roger T. Benitez

Dale A. Kimball

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER

ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III) MDL No. 3167

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. FOSTER FARMS, LLC, C.A. No. 3:25−07996

Northern District of Illinois

HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. PECO FOODS INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−11348

Eastern District of Oklahoma

HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 6:25−00217

District of South Carolina

HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS INC., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:25−12629

Western District of Virginia

HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. GEORGE'S INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25−00099