throbber
Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3924 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 1 of 399 PageID #:264056
`
`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-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket