`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
` v.
`Case No.
`!"#$ %#&’( )*+’,-*-(Related to !" #$ %#&’($# )*’+,$" -".’.#/0. 1’.’23.’&" 4 )30$ 5&6 7879:+;:<=9>?)1:20-cv-7205
`Plaintiff Chick-fil-A, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “CFA, Inc.”) is a Georgia corporation with
`its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. CFA, Inc. develops and supports a chain
`of retail quick-service restaurants specializing in a boneless breast of chicken sandwich, known as
`the Chick-fil-A® Chicken Sandwich.
`Since CFA, Inc. was founded by Truett Cathy in 1964, it has endeavored to conduct
`business with an emphasis on business ethics such as fairness, honesty, loyalty, and respect.
`The majority of Chick-fil-A branded restaurant businesses are owned and operated
`by independent franchisees, known as Operators. CFA, Inc. also operates various Chick-fil-A and
`other restaurants itself from time to time. Certain affiliates of Chick-fil-A operate certain Dwarf
`House restaurants and Truett’s Grill restaurants, which are licensed to sell Chick-fil-A products.
`CFA, Inc. has also granted licenses to certain Chick-fil-A licensees. Collectively, these Chick-fil-
`A branded restaurants make up the “CFA Restaurant Group.”
`Broiler chicken is the central ingredient in many of the proprietary products served
`at each Chick-fil-A branded restaurant, which include, but are not limited to, the Chick-fil-A®


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
`Chicken Sandwich, the Grilled Chicken Sandwich, the Spicy Chicken Sandwich, and the Chick-
`fil-A® Nuggets. These proprietary chicken products have directly contributed to the success and
`growth of the CFA Restaurant Group into one of the nation’s largest quick service restaurant
`chains. 5.
`To ensure consistency in taste and quality of products served across multiple
`locations spanning multiple states, CFA, Inc. negotiated and contracted directly with certain
`Defendants for the production and supply of its chicken according to CFA, Inc.’s unique recipes
`and specifications. These negotiations and contracts governed the price at which certain
`Defendants agreed to supply the CFA Restaurant Group with broiler chicken.
`CFA, Inc. provided certain Defendants with instructions regarding each step of the
`preparation and packaging process for the chicken products sold by the CFA Restaurant Group,
`including the recipe for those products and specific requirements for packaging and labeling those
`products. 7.
`CFA, Inc. also utilized distributors such as Armada Supply Chain Solutions, LLC
`and Armada Warehouse Solutions, LLC (collectively “Armada”), Golden State Foods Corp. and
`Quality Custom Distribution Services, Inc. (collectively “GSF/QCD”), and Meadowbrook Meat
`Company, Inc. and McLane Foodservice, Inc. (collectively “MBM/McLane”), to serve the CFA
`Restaurant Group. For purposes of this action, Armada, GSF/QCD, and MBM/McLane have all
`assigned their claims arising out of these transactions to CFA, Inc.
`CFA, Inc. brings this action on its own behalf, and additionally and alternatively,
`as assignee of Armada, GSF/QCD, MBM/McLane, and their affiliates (collectively “Assignors”).
`All references in this Complaint to “CFA, Inc.” or “Plaintiff” include Chick-fil-A, Inc.’s


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
`CFA, Inc. and/or its Assignors purchased billions of dollars worth of broiler
`chicken from Defendants and/or their co-conspirators throughout the relevant period at prices that
`were artificially inflated due to the conduct outlined below. As such, CFA, Inc. and the CFA
`Restaurant Group sustained injury and damages to their businesses as a proximate result of the
`antitrust violations and other unlawful activities alleged in this Complaint.
`CFA, Inc. brings this action for damages under the federal antitrust laws against the
`defendants identified below and incorporates by reference Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated
`Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922] filed in In re Broiler Chicken
`Antitrust Litigation, 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill.) on October 23, 2020.1
`CFA, Inc. joins Section II of the Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint
`and Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922], adding the following to specify CFA, Inc.’s
`causes of action and the Defendants and Co-Conspirators in CFA, Inc.’s action.
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s orders in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 1:16-cv-08637, the Direct-
`Action Plaintiffs filed “a consolidated complaint” [ECF Nos. 3778, 3652, 3525] containing “all
`the allegations the Direct-Action Plaintiffs make against all Defendants” on October 23, 2020
`[ECF Nos. 3924, 3922]. The Court’s orders did not address how DAPs seeking to file new
`complaints after the filing of Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint and Demand for
`Jury Trial should proceed. In an effort to promote efficiency, Plaintiff files this abbreviated
`pleading that incorporates by reference and adopts the allegations set forth in Direct Action
`Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. If the Court prefers a different form
`or process, Plaintiff will withdraw this pleading and proceed according to the Court’s direction.


`(Reference is
`to Sealed
`Version, if
`Plaintiff Name
`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
`Conspirators (if
`any) 2
`Amick; Fieldale;
`George’s; Marshall
`Durbin; Peco
`Named Defendants
`Causes of Action
`(Not Previously
`Count I (Sherman Act
`Agri Stats; Case;
`Claim for all
`Claxton; Foster
`Anticompetitive Conduct);
`Farms; Harrison;
`Count II (Sherman Act
`House of Raeford;
`Claim for Output
`Keystone Foods;
`Restriction, Pled in the
`Koch; Mar-Jac;
`Alternative to Count I);
`Mountaire; O.K.
`Count III (Sherman Act
`Foods; Perdue;
`Claim for GA Dock
`Pilgrim’s Pride;
`Manipulation, Pled in the
`Sanderson; Simmons;
`Alternative to Count I);
`Tyson; Wayne
`Count LVII (Sherman Act
`Claim for Bid Rigging,
`Pled in the Alternative to
`Count I)
`In addition to the above information, CFA, Inc. also adds the following additional
`count to Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos.
`3924, 3922].
`CFA, Inc. incorporates by reference and adopts the allegations set forth in Direct
`Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922], and
`the allegations in the superseding indictment returned by the grand jury in United States v. Jayson
`Jeffrey Penn, et al., 20-cv-152 (D. Colo.) [ECF No. 101], on October 6, 2020.
`2 By virtue of Plaintiff previously being a member of the putative class of direct purchasers,
`Plaintiff was also a member of the settlement classes that were certified with respect to Fieldale
`Farms Corporation, George’s, Inc. and George’s Farms, Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., and Amick Farms,
`LLC. While Plaintiff has not named these corporations as defendants, Plaintiff nonetheless has
`named these corporations as co-conspirators in order to describe their conduct and contributions
`to the unlawful conspiracy.


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
`The Superseding Indictment describes bid-rigging conduct that specifically
`affected one of the victims identified in the Superseding Indictment by the pseudonym QSR-5.
`According to the Superseding Indictment, on or about February 11, 2014, QSR-5
`announced plans to serve antibiotic free or No Antibiotics Ever (“NAE”) broiler chicken meat at
`all of QSR-5’s restaurants within the following five years.
`Following QSR-5’s announcement, a number of Defendants communicated via
`phone and text message in order to share and coordinate confidential bidding and pricing
`information in connection with QSR-5’s request for bids relating to its planned transition to only
`serving ABF broiler chicken meat.
`CFA, Inc. is the victim identified in the Superseding Indictment by the pseudonym
`QSR-5. 18.
`CFA, Inc. was directly and proximately injured by the bid-rigging conduct
`described above and in the Superseding Indictment.
`Defendants’ unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy had the following direct,
`substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effects on commerce in the United States: (1) prices
`charged to, and paid by, CFA, Inc. for chicken were artificially raised, fixed, maintained, or
`stabilized at supra-competitive levels; (2) CFA, Inc. was deprived of the benefits of free, open, and
`unrestricted competition in the United States chicken market; and (3) competition in establishing
`the prices paid for chicken in the United States was unlawfully restrained, suppressed, or
`Defendants’ above-described anticompetitive activities directly and proximately
`caused injury to CFA, Inc. in the United States.


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described unlawful conduct,
`CFA, Inc. paid artificially inflated prices for chicken.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described anticompetitive
`conduct, CFA, Inc. was damaged in its business or property by paying prices for chicken that were
`higher than they would have been but for Defendants’ unlawful conduct, which has resulted in an
`amount of ascertainable damages to be established at trial.
`Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct described in this Complaint constitutes a per
`se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Alternatively, Defendants’ conduct
`is also unlawful under the Rule of Reason standard of antitrust liability because at all relevant
`times Defendants possessed significant market power in the market for broilers and their conduct
`had actual anticompetitive effects with no or insufficient offsetting pro-competitive justifications.
`WHEREFORE, CFA, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:
`Enter joint and several judgments against Defendants in favor of CFA, Inc.;
`Award CFA, Inc. damages against Defendants in a joint and several judgment for
`an amount to be determined at trial to the maximum extent allowed under the claims stated above
`as well as treble damages, any other enhancement of damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs
`as provided by law;
`Award CFA, Inc. its pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law, with such
`interest to be awarded at the highest legal rate;
`Award CFA, Inc. its attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as provided by
`law, including the federal antitrust laws; and


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
`Grant CFA, Inc. such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, CFA, Inc. demands a trial by jury on all
`issues so triable.
`Respectfully Submitted,
` Dated: December 4, 2020
`/s/ Matthew J. Calvert
`Matthew J. Calvert (pro hac vice pending)
`Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100
`600 Peachtree Street NE
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`(404) 888-4000
`Ryan P. Phair (#479050)
`Craig Y. Lee (admitted pro hac vice)
`Emily K. Bolles (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher C. Brewer (admitted pro hac vice)
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037-1701
`(202) 955-1500
` John S. Martin (admitted pro hac vice)
`Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
`951 East Byrd Street
`Richmond, VA 23219-4704
`(804) 788-8200


`Case: 1:20-cv-07205 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
`Julie B. Porter (#6243787)
`1010 Davis Street
`Evanston, IL 60201
`(312) 283-5711
` Attorneys for Plaintiff Chick-fil-A, Inc.

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

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.


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

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