`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`Judge Thomas M. Durkin
`
` Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`_____________________________________
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`All Direct Action Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 2 of 399 PageID #:264057
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`I.
`
`II. CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES ........................................................ 11
`
`III. SUMMARY OF DAP FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.......................................................... 48
`
`A. Overview of the Broiler Industry ................................................................................ 48
`
`B. Summary of Defendants’ Conspiracy ......................................................................... 50
`
`C. Defendants’ Coordinated Supply Restrictions ............................................................ 51
`
`D. Defendants’ Manipulation of the Georgia Dock Price Index ..................................... 54
`
`E. Defendants’ Bid-Rigging Conduct ............................................................................. 55
`
`IV. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 57
`
`A. Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................... 57
`
`B. Defendants .................................................................................................................. 92
`
`1. Agri Stats ............................................................................................................92
`
`2. Amick ..................................................................................................................93
`
`3. Case .....................................................................................................................93
`
`4. Claxton ................................................................................................................94
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Fieldale ................................................................................................................95
`
`Foster Farms........................................................................................................95
`
`7. George’s ..............................................................................................................96
`
`8. Harrison...............................................................................................................96
`
`9. House of Raeford ................................................................................................96
`
`10. Keystone Foods ...................................................................................................97
`
`11. Koch ....................................................................................................................98
`
`12. Mar-Jac ...............................................................................................................99
`
`13. Mountaire ..........................................................................................................100
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 3 of 399 PageID #:264058
`
`14. O.K. Foods ........................................................................................................101
`
`15. Peco ...................................................................................................................101
`
`16. Perdue ...............................................................................................................101
`
`17. Pilgrim’s Pride ..................................................................................................102
`
`18. Sanderson ..........................................................................................................102
`
`19. Simmons ...........................................................................................................103
`
`20. Tyson.................................................................................................................104
`
`21. Wayne ...............................................................................................................105
`
`V. Producer Co-Conspirators .................................................................................................. 106
`
`A. Producer Co-Conspirator Allen Harim ..................................................................... 106
`
`B. Producer Co-Conspirator Marshall Durbin ............................................................... 107
`
`C. The Defendant Family Co-Conspirators ................................................................... 108
`
`1. Koch ..................................................................................................................108
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Tyson.................................................................................................................113
`
`Perdue ...............................................................................................................113
`
`4. Wayne Farms ....................................................................................................114
`
`5. George’s ............................................................................................................115
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Peco Foods ........................................................................................................116
`
`Pilgrim’s Pride ..................................................................................................116
`
`Foster Farms......................................................................................................117
`
`9. O.K. Foods ........................................................................................................118
`
`10. House of Raeford ..............................................................................................118
`
`11. Keystone Foods .................................................................................................119
`
`VI. NON-PRODUCER CO-CONSPIRATORS TIP TOP POULTRY, INC.,
`SOUTHERN HENS, INC. AND RABOBANK ................................................................ 119
`
`VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................ 121
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 4 of 399 PageID #:264059
`
`VIII. TRADE AND COMMERCE ............................................................................................. 122
`
`IX. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL
`CONSPIRACY .................................................................................................................. 125
`
`A. Production Cutting .................................................................................................... 128
`
`1.
`
`In an Early Phase of their Conspiracy, Defendants Departed from Their
`Historical Practice by Collectively Reducing Breeder Flocks in
`Unprecedented Amounts ...................................................................................128
`
`2. Defendants’ Executives Publicly Decried the Effect of Oversupply on
`“Our Industry,” Telling their Competitors that Unified Action Was
`Necessary ..........................................................................................................130
`
`B. Defendants Begin to Cut Production in Concert....................................................... 133
`
`C. Defendants’ First Round of Chicken Production Cuts Included Unprecedented
`Reductions to Chicken Breeder Flocks ..................................................................... 145
`
`D. Defendants Continued Their Conspiracy With a Second Massive Breeder
`Flock Cull in 2011 .................................................................................................... 148
`
`E. Drastically-Reduced Breeder Flocks Boosted Chicken Prices and Raised
`Defendants’ Profits to Record Levels ....................................................................... 161
`
`F. Defendants Utilized Urner Barry to Assist Them Capitalize on Their Supply
`Reduction Efforts ...................................................................................................... 168
`
`G. Defendants Capitalized on Their Prior Actual Reduction of Broilers to
`Coordinate a False Supply Reduction ....................................................................... 172
`
`H. The Conspiracy Also Included the Collusive and Fraudulent Manipulation of
`the Georgia Dock Price Index ................................................................................... 173
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`The PMN, the Georgia Dock, and the PMN Advisory Committee Were Created
`and Sustained for the Benefit of Georgia Dock Defendants and the Broiler
`Industry ..................................................................................................................... 181
`
`The Georgia Poultry Federation’s Role in Creating and Sustaining the Georgia
`Dock for the Benefit of Defendants and the Broiler Industry ................................... 187
`
`K. The Georgia Dock Became Ripe for Manipulation .................................................. 188
`
`L. Regulatory Investigation and Demise of the Georgia Dock ..................................... 192
`
`M. The Georgia Dock Price Index Diverged From the USDA Composite and Urner
`Barry Price Indices Beginning in 2011 ..................................................................... 196
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 5 of 399 PageID #:264060
`
`N. Defendants Fraudulently Submitted False and Inflated Quotes to the Poultry
`Market News, Causing the Index to Be Artificially High ........................................ 197
`
`1.
`
`Pilgrim’s Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ............199
`
`2. Koch Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..................207
`
`3. Mar-Jac Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..............210
`
`4. Harrison Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock .............213
`
`5.
`
`Sanderson Farms Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia
`Dock ..................................................................................................................218
`
`6.
`
`Tyson Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock .................221
`
`7. Claxton Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ..............223
`
`8. Wayne Farms Fraudulently Made False Submissions to the Georgia
`Dock ..................................................................................................................226
`
`9.
`
`Fieldale Farms Also Made False Submissions to the Georgia Dock ................228
`
`O. The Georgia Dock Defendants Fraudulently Failed to Inform the Plaintiffs with
`Which They Did Business of their Control Over the Georgia Dock, Their Ability
`to Manipulate the Georgia Dock, and Their Actual Manipulation of the Georgia
`Dock .......................................................................................................................... 231
`
`P. The Georgia Dock Defendants Made Fraudulent Misrepresentations to Plaintiffs
`by Stating that the Georgia Dock Reflected the Broiler Chicken Market ................ 236
`
`Q. Plaintiffs Were Harmed by the Georgia Dock Defendants’ Fraudulent
`Submissions, Omissions, and Misrepresentations .................................................... 239
`
`R. Defendants Had Both the Motive and Opportunity to Perpetrate the Fraud and
`Specifically Intended To Do So ................................................................................ 240
`
`S. Defendants Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity as Part of the
`Conduct of an Enterprise’s Affairs ........................................................................... 242
`
`T. The Georgia Dock Defendants Did Not Contract with Plaintiffs in Good Faith ...... 244
`
`U. Defendants used the Georgia Dock Manipulation To Impact Higher Prices
`Charged to Contract Purchasers ................................................................................ 246
`
`V. Defendants’ Bid-Rigging Conduct ........................................................................... 247
`
`W. The Structure and Characteristics of the Chicken Market Make it Highly
`Susceptible to Collusion ........................................................................................... 251
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 6 of 399 PageID #:264061
`
`X. Defendants Collusively Adopted Additional Strategies to Reinforce Their
`Conspiracy ................................................................................................................ 267
`
`Y. Agri Stats Actively Facilitated Defendants’ Conspiratorial Communications
`And Provided Data Necessary To Effectuate, Monitor, And Enforce The
`Conspiracy ................................................................................................................ 273
`
`Z.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims are Timely .................................................................................... 290
`
`X. ANTITRUST IMPACT ..................................................................................................... 297
`
`XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................... 298
`
`COUNT I – VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ........... 298
`
`COUNT II – VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 ................................................................... 301
`
`COUNT III – VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1 (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS FOR PRICE-FIXING) ................................................................... 302
`
`COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF GA. CODE ANN. §§ 16-14-4(a) AND 16-14-6
`(GEORGIA RICO) (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS
`FOR ACQUIRING MONEY THROUGH RACKETEERING ACTIVITY) .......... 304
`
`COUNT V – VIOLATION OF GA. CODE ANN. §§ 16-14-4(b) AND 16-14-6
`(GEORGIA RICO) (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS FOR
`CONDUCTING ENTERPRISE THROUGH RACKETEERING ACTIVITY) ...... 309
`
`COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) AND 1964(c) (FEDERAL
`RICO) (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ............................... 315
`
`COUNT VII – CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA
`DOCK DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................... 319
`
`COUNT VIII – FRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ............ 320
`
`COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (AGAINST THE GEORGIA
`DOCK DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................................... 321
`
`COUNT X – VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
`TRADE PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST FIELDALE) ............................................ 321
`
`COUNT XI – VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
`TRADE PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST SANDERSON) ....................................... 323
`
`COUNT XII – BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST FIELDALE) ............................. 325
`
`COUNT XIII – BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST SANDERSON) ....................... 326
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 7 of 399 PageID #:264062
`
`COUNT XIV – BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
`FAIR DEALING (AGAINST FIELDALE) ............................................................. 327
`
`COUNT XV – BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
`FAIR DEALING (AGAINST SANDERSON) ........................................................ 329
`
`COUNT XVI – UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST FIELDALE) .............................. 330
`
`COUNT XVII – UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST SANDERSON) ........................ 331
`
`COUNT XVIII – VIOLATION OF THE WISCONSIN ANTITRUST ACT ................... 331
`
`COUNT XIX – VIOLATION OF THE TENNESSEE TRADE PRACTICES ACT ....... 334
`
`COUNT XX – COMMON LAW FRAUD (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 336
`
`COUNT XXI – BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
`AND FAIR DEALING (AGAINST ALL GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) .... 340
`
`COUNT XXII – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (AGAINST THE
`GEORGIA DOCK DEFENDANTS) ........................................................................ 341
`
`COUNT XXIII – UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST THE GEORGIA DOCK
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 343
`
`COUNT XXIV – VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN §§ 39-3-10, ET SEQ.
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................................................................... 344
`
`COUNT XXV – VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN §§ 39-35, ET SEQ.
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................................................................... 345
`
`COUNT XXVI – VIOLATION OF FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
`TRADE PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. § 501.201(2), ET SEQ. (AGAINST
`ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................................................................................. 347
`
`COUNT XXVII – VIOLATION OF ARIZONA’S UNIFORM STATE ANTITRUST
`ACT, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1401, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 348
`
`COUNT XXVIII – VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS ANTITRUST ACT, 740 Ill. COMP.
`STAT. ANN. 10/1 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................ 349
`
`COUNT XXIX – VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA ANTITRUST LAW, MINN.
`STAT. §325D.49, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................. 350
`
`COUNT XXX – VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO ANTITRUST ACT, N.M.
`STAT. ANN. §§ 57-1-15, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ................. 351
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 8 of 399 PageID #:264063
`
`COUNT XXXI – VIOLATION OF SECTION 340 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL
`BUSINESS LAW (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................ 352
`
`COUNT XXXII – VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND
`DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.
`505/10a, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................................ 353
`
`COUNT XXXIII – VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA CONSUMER FRAUD
`ACT, MINN. STAT. § 325F.68, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ...... 354
`
`COUNT XXXIV – VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES
`ACT, N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-12-3, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 355
`
`COUNT XXXV – VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CARTWRIGHT ACT, CAL.
`BUS & PROF. CODE §16700, ET SEQ (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......... 357
`
`COUNT XXXVI – VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION
`LAW, CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 358
`
`COUNT XXXVII – VIOLATION OF ALABAMA ANTITRUST LAW, ALABAMA
`CODE §§ 6-5-60, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................. 360
`
`COUNT XXXVIII – VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER
`PROTECTION ACT, COLO. REV. STAT., §§ 6-1-101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST
`ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................................................................................. 361
`
`COUNT XXXIX – VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTITRUST
`ACT, D.C. CODE § 28-4501, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)........... 363
`
`COUNT XL – VIOLATION OF HAWAII ANTITRUST LAWS, HAWAII REV.
`STAT. § 480, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .................................... 364
`
`COUNT XLI – VIOLATION OF THE MAINE’S ANTITRUST STATUTE, ME.
`REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 10 § 1101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 365
`
`COUNTXLII – VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT,
`MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.771, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ... 367
`
`COUNT XLIII – VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
`PRACTICES ACT, MO. ANN. STAT. § 407.010, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 368
`
`COUNT XLIV – VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
`ACT, NEV. REV. STAT. § 598A.010, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 369
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 9 of 399 PageID #:264064
`
`COUNT XLV – VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT, NEV. REV. STAT. § 598.0903, ET SEQ. (AGAINST
`ALL DEFENDANTS) .............................................................................................. 371
`
`COUNT XLVI – VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE
`AND BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1, ET SEQ.
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................................................................... 372
`
`COUNT XLVII – VIOLATION OF THE RHODE ISLAND ANTITRUST ACT,
`R.I. GEN. LAWS ANN. §6-36-1, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .... 374
`
`COUNT XLVIII – VIOLATION OF THE UTAH ANTITRUST ACT, UTAH CODE
`ANN. § 76-10-911, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ........................... 375
`
`COUNT XLIX – VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
`VA CODE ANN. § 59.1, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .................. 377
`
`COUNT L – VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS RESTRAINT OF TRADE ACT,
`KANS. STAT. ANN. § 50-101, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ....... 378
`
`COUNT LI – VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA JUNKIN ACT, NEB. REV.
`STAT. § 59-801, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............................... 380
`
`COUNT LII – VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION
`ACT, NEB. REV. STAT. §59-1602, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL
`DEFENDANTS) ....................................................................................................... 381
`
`COUNT LIII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE’S CONSUMER
`PROTECTION ACT, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. XXXI, 358-A, ET SEQ.
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................................................................... 383
`
`COUNT LIV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ............... 385
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 10 of 399 PageID #:264065
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s orders to file “a consolidated complaint” [ECF Nos. 3778, 3653,
`
`3525] that “will contain all the allegations all the Direct-Action Plaintiffs make against all
`
`Defendants, and will function as an amendment to some of the complaints” [ECF No. 3526 at n.2],
`
`Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs” or “Plaintiffs”)1 submit this compilation of the allegations of the
`
`various DAP complaints filed as of October 21, 2020.2 DAPs have attempted to set forth here all
`
`material factual allegations in each DAP’s complaint and have listed each Plaintiff’s (i) claims, (ii)
`
`defendants whom it has sued, (iii) and named Co-Conspirators. Where multiple DAPs allege
`
`similar factual allegations but do not use identical language in making those allegations, this
`
`pleading lists the factual allegation once rather than reproducing multiple iterations of similar
`
`factual allegations. Because of differences in the underlying DAP complaints, certain factual
`
`allegations may only relate or be material to the claims of certain DAPs, but all factual allegations
`
`have nonetheless been included in the combined factual recitation pursuant to this Court’s orders.
`
`DAPs join in the factual allegations made in this pleading only to the extent consistent with their
`
`individual claims, and do not necessarily adopt the allegations, theories or legal positions of other
`
`DAPs. If a factual allegation in this pleading conflicts with a factual allegation in an underlying
`
`DAP complaint or with a specific cause of action brought by a DAP, the factual allegations in the
`
`underlying DAP complaint govern and supersede the factual allegations in this pleading for that
`
`specific Plaintiff.
`
`
`1
`Given the consolidated nature of this complaint, the plural usage of the term
`“Plaintiffs” is used throughout to generally describe one or more DAP but should not be construed
`to necessarily refer to all DAPs for purposes of all factual allegations or legal causes of action as
`explained infra in this document.
`
`DAPs objected to filing a consolidated complaint [ECF No. 3625], and maintain
`2
`those objections for all purposes, including any appeals.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 11 of 399 PageID #:264066
`
`Although this document compiles the factual allegations, DAPs have abided by the Court’s
`
`order [ECF No. 3778] that “the parties are prohibited from using the preparation of consolidated
`
`pleadings as a vehicle for amending their pleadings.” DAPs understand this order in conjunction
`
`with ECF No. 3526 (at n. 2) to preserve the individual claims in, and corresponding independent
`
`legal existence of, each DAP case. The submission of this consolidated complaint should not be
`
`construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any DAP’s rights, including the due-process right to
`
`proceed outside of the putative class in this case and to prosecute claims separately in a direct
`
`action with counsel of each DAP’s choosing. DAPs have not filed identical complaints and, in
`
`many instances, have sued different defendants and asserted different claims.3 By compiling the
`
`factual allegations and claims from the various complaints pursuant to this Court’s order, DAPs
`
`do not concede that consolidation beyond that permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`would be proper, especially for trial.4
`
`This Complaint is organized as follows: Section II sets out a chart identifying each Plaintiff
`
`and (1) the docket number on the consolidated docket for the DAP operative complaint, (2) the
`
`
`3
`For example, some DAPs chose not to sue certain Defendants sued by other DAPs.
`Some DAPs’ claims are based in whole or in part on the Georgia Dock Price Index in their supply
`agreements with certain Defendants; others are not. Some DAPs asserted state-law claims that are
`specific to their particular geographic locations; others did not. Some DAPs decided to include
`RICO claims in their complaint; many did not. Many DAPs filed only Sherman Act claims. Others
`included state law claims, and some include indirect purchaser claims in their complaints. Each
`DAP has performed its legal analysis of the causes of action applicable to it based on the facts
`specific to each DAP.
`
`In submitting this pleading, DAPs continue to maintain their “separate legal
`4
`existence” and object to any loss of their individual due process rights. In re Fluidmaster, 149
`F.Supp.3d 940, 947 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (quoting In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 731
`F.3d 586, 590-91 (6th Cir. 2013)); In re Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL
`2272, 2012 WL 3582708, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2012) (collecting cases that state that “a master
`or consolidated complaint is a procedural device used to promote judicial efficiency and economy,
`not to be given the same effect as an ordinary complaint or considered to merge the suits into a
`single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties
`in another.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 12 of 399 PageID #:264067
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 12 of 399 PageID #:264067
`
`Defendants named in the DAP complaint (if a Plaintiff has dismissed a Defendant, that Defendant
`
`is no longer listed in the Defendant column but in the named co-conspirator column), (3) the co-
`
`conspirators named in the DAP complaint, and (4) the causes of action asserted in the DAP
`
`complaint (and the Counts in this pleading that correspond with the causes of action in the
`
`individual DAP complaint). Sections 111 through X set out the factual allegations. Section XI
`
`states all of the causes of action asserted by any DAP in its respective complaint.
`
`II.
`
`CHART OF DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF CASES
`
`Plaintiff Name
`
`Operative
`Complaint
`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`
`Version, if
`applicable)
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Alex Lee.
`Inc/Merchants
`Distributors.
`LLC
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Associated
`Grocers of New
`
`England. Inc.
`
`any) Causes of Action
`
`Named Defendants
`
`Named Co-
`
`(Not Previously
`Dismissed)
`
`Conspirators (if
`
`Agri Stats: Claxton:
`Fieldale: Foster
`
`Farms: George‘s:
`Harrison: House of
`Raeford; Koch: Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire; 0.K.
`Foods: Peco; Perdue:
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Agri Stats: Claxton:
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms; George‘s;
`Harrison: House of
`Raeford: Koch: Mar-
`Jac: Mountaire: O.K.
`Foods: Peco: Perdue:
`
`Pilgrim’s Pride:
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson: Wayne
`
`Agn' Stats: Claxton:
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms; George‘s;
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch: Mar-
`Jac: Mountaire: O.K.
`Foods: Peco; Perdue:
`
`Pilgrim‘s Pride:
`Sanderson: Simmons:
`Tyson: Wayne
`
`11
`
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count ]I[
`(Sherman Act for GA
`Dock Manipulation)
`
`Count 11 (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count III
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`Count 11 (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count III
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 13 of 399 PageID #:264068
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 13 of 399 PageID #:264068
`
`N
`amed Defendants
`(Not Prevrously
`Dismissed)
`
`Nani“! Co— .
`consP‘mml's (If
`any)
`
`.
`Causes of Action
`
`-
`-
`Plallltlfl' Name
`
`Operative
`Complaint
`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`Version, if
`applicable)
`
`Big Y Foods.
`In .
`
`ECF 577-1
`
`Fareway Stores. ECF 577-
`Inc.
`
`ECF 577-
`
`Piggly Wiggly
`Alabama
`
`Distributing
`Co.. Inc.
`
`
`
`Agri Stats: Claxton;
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms; George’s;
`Harrison: House of
`Raeford: Koch: Mar-
`Jac: Mountaire: O.K.
`Foods: Peco; Perdue:
`Pilgrim’s Pride:
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson: Wayne
`
`Agn' Stats: Claxton:
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms: George‘s:
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch; Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire; O.K.
`Foods; Peco; Perdue:
`Pilgrim‘s Pride:
`Sanderson: Simmons:
`Tyson: Wayne
`
`Agri Stats: Claxton:
`Fieldale: Foster
`
`Farms: George‘s:
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch: Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire; 0.K.
`Foods: Peco; Perdue:
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne
`
`Count H (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count III
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Count lIl
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction): Cotmt III
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`Count 11 (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction); Count III
`(Sherman Act Claim for
`GA Dock Manipulation)
`
`ECF 577-
`
`Agri Stats: Claxton;
`Fieldale; Foster
`Farms; George’s;
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch: Mar-
`Jac: Motmtaire: 0.K.
`Foods: Peco: Perdue:
`
`Pilgrim‘s Pn'de:
`Sanderson: Simmons:
`Tyson: Wayne
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 14 of 399 PageID #:264069
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 14 of 399 PageID #:264069
`
`Named Defendants
`
`Named Co—
`
`Operative
`Complaint
`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`
`Version, if
`applicable)
`
`ECF 2143
`
`Plaintiff Name
`
`Winn-Dixie
`Stores. Inc.
`
`(Not Previously
`Dismissed)
`
`Agn' Stats: Amick:
`Case: Claxton; Foster
`
`Farms: George‘s:
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Koch; Mar-