Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
` Case No: 1:21-cv-00268
`
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`(Related to In re Broiler Chicken
`Antitrust Litigation – Case No.
`1:16-cv-08637)
`
`
`TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON CHICKEN,
`INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; TYSON
`POULTRY, INC.; PILGRIM’S PRIDE
`CORPORATION; KOCH FOODS, INC.; JCG
`FOODS OF ALABAMA, LLC; JCG FOODS
`OF GEORGIA, LLC; KOCH MEAT CO., INC.;
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON
`FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION);
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION
`DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
`(PROCESSING DIVISION); HOUSE OF
`RAEFORD FARMS, INC.; MAR-JAC
`POULTRY, INC.; PERDUE FARMS, INC.;
`PERDUE FOODS, LLC; WAYNE FARMS,
`LLC; GEORGE’S, INC.; GEORGE’S FARMS,
`INC.; SIMMONS FOODS, INC.; SIMMONS
`PREPARED FOODS, INC.; O.K. FOODS,
`INC.; O.K. FARMS, INC.; O.K. INDUSTRIES,
`INC.; PECO FOODS, INC.; HARRISON
`POULTRY, INC.; FOSTER FARMS, LLC;
`FOSTER POULTRY FARMS; CLAXTON
`POULTRY FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE
`FARMS, INC.; MOUNTAIRE FARMS, LLC;
`MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.;
`AGRI STATS, INC.; AMICK FARMS, LLC;
`CASE FOODS, INC.; CASE FARMS, LLC;
`CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC.;
`KEYSTONE FOODS LLC; EQUITY GROUP
`EUFAULA DIVISION, LLC; EQUITY GROUP
`KENTUCKY DIVISION LLC; and EQUITY
`GROUP-GEORGIA DIVISION LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`124558886.5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Restaurant Services, Inc. (“RSI” or “Plaintiff”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`1.
`
`with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. RSI serves as the exclusive supply chain
`
`management and distribution cooperative for the BURGER KING® system of company-owned
`
`and franchisee-owned restaurants in the United States (“BK Restaurants”).
`
`2.
`
`BURGER KING® is the second largest fast food hamburger chain in the world. As
`
`the purchasing agent for BK Restaurants, RSI negotiates contracts and purchases products and
`
`distribution services on their behalf. During the relevant time period, RSI contracted with
`
`Defendants for the production and supply of Broilers. RSI also utilized distributors to supply BK
`
`Restaurants with Broilers purchased on their behalf pursuant to these negotiations and contracts.
`
`These distributors include McLane Company, Inc. (“McLane”), Nicholas and Company,
`
`Performance Food Group, Inc. (“PFG”), Reinhart Foodservice, LLC (“Reinhart”), Shamrock
`
`Foods Company (“Shamrock”), Sygma Network (“Sygma”), Sysco Montana, Inc. (“Sysco
`
`Montana”), and Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc., including its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
`
`Maines Paper & Food Service - Maryland, Inc., Maines Paper & Food Service - New England,
`
`Inc., Maines Paper & Food Service - Ohio, Inc., Maines Paper & Food Service - NY Metro, Inc.,
`
`Maines Paper & Food Service - Mid-Atlantic, Inc., and Maines Paper & Food Service - Tennessee,
`
`Inc. (collectively “Maines”), who have each assigned their claims arising out of these transactions
`
`to RSI.
`
`3.
`
`RSI brings this action on its own behalf, and as assignee of McLane, Nicholas and
`
`Company, PFG, Reinhart, Shamrock, Sygma, Sysco Montana, Maines, and their affiliates
`
`(collectively, “Assignors”). The references in this Complaint to “RSI” and/or “Plaintiff” include
`
`RSI’s Assignors.
`
`124558886.5
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`4.
`
`During the time period relevant to RSI’s claims, RSI and/or its Assignors directly
`
`purchased Broilers in the United States from Defendants and/or their co-conspirators, and
`
`sustained injury and damages as a proximate result of the antitrust violations and other unlawful
`
`activities alleged in this Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`RSI 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
`
`6.
`
`RSI joins Section II of the Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint and
`
`Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922], adding the following to specify RSI’s causes of
`
`action and the Defendants and Co-Conspirators in RSI’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]. In an effort to promote efficiency given the Court’s recent reference to
`similar abbreviated Complaints as helpful to the Court [ECF No. 4139], 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.
`
`124558886.5
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Name
`
`Operative
`
`Complaint
`
`(Reference is to
`Sealed Version, if
`applicable)
`
`Named
`Defendants (Not
`Previously
`Dismissed)
`
`Restaurant
`Services, Inc.
`
` To Be Determined
`
`Agri Stats; Amick;
`Case; Claxton; Foster
`Farms; George’s;
`Harrison; House of
`Raeford; Keystone
`Foods; Koch; Mar-
`Jac; Mountaire Farms;
`O.K. Foods; Peco;
`Perdue; Pilgrim’s
`Pride; Sanderson
`Farms; Simmons;
`Tyson; Wayne Farms
`
`Named Co-
`Conspirators (if
`any)2
`
`Allen Harim;
`Fieldale Farms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Causes of Action
`
`Count I (Sherman Act
`Claim for all
`Anticompetitive Conduct);
`Count II (Sherman Act
`Claim for Output
`Restriction, Pled in the
`Alternative to Count I);
`Count III (Sherman Act
`Claim for GA Dock
`Manipulation, Pled in the
`Alternative to Count I);
`Count LVII (Sherman Act
`Claim for Bid Rigging,
`Pled in the Alternative to
`Count I)
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`In addition to the above, RSI adds the following count to Direct Action Plaintiffs’
`
`Consolidated Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [ECF Nos. 3924, 3922].
`
`
`COUNT LVII
`VIOLATION OF 15 USC § 1
`(AGAINST GEORGE’S, KOCH, PERDUE, PILGRIM’S PRIDE, AND TYSON
`FOR BID RIGGING – PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT I)
`
`RSI incorporates by reference and adopts the allegations set forth above, and in
`
`8.
`
`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., No. 20-cv-152 (D. Colo.) [ECF No. 101] on October 6, 2020
`
`(“Superseding Indictment”).
`
`
`2 By virtue of Plaintiff previously being a member of the putative class of direct purchasers,
`Plaintiff was also a member of the settlement class that was certified with respect to Fieldale
`Farms. While Plaintiff has not named Fieldale as a defendant, Plaintiff nonetheless has named
`Fieldale as a co-conspirator in order to describe its conduct and contributions to the unlawful
`conspiracy. Plaintiff timely opted out of the direct purchaser class settlements with Amick,
`George’s, and Peco.
`
`124558886.5
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`9.
`
`RSI was directly and proximately injured by the bid-rigging conduct described in
`
`the Superseding Indictment.
`
`10.
`
`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, RSI for chicken were artificially raised, fixed, maintained, or stabilized at
`
`supra-competitive levels; (2) RSI 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 eliminated.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants’ above-described anticompetitive activities directly and proximately
`
`caused injury to Plaintiff in the United States.
`
`12.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described unlawful conduct,
`
`RSI paid artificially inflated prices for chicken.
`
`13.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described anticompetitive
`
`conduct, RSI 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.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct described in this Complaint constitutes a per
`
`se violation of Section of 1 of Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 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.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`124558886.5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Enter joint and several judgments against all Defendants in favor of Plaintiff;
`
`B.
`
`Award Plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial to the maximum
`
`extent allowed under federal antitrust laws, and enter a joint and several judgment in favor of
`
`Plaintiff against Defendants in an amount to be trebled to the extent such laws permit;
`
`C.
`
`Award Plaintiff its post-judgment interest as provided by law, with such interest to
`
`be awarded at the highest legal rate;
`
`D.
`
`Award Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as provided by
`
`law; and
`
`E.
`
`Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all
`
`issues so triable.
`
`Dated: January 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ David B. Esau
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David B. Esau
`Kristin A. Gore
`Amanda R. Jesteadt
`Stephen A. Cohen
`Casey R. McGowan
`CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
`525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
`Tel: (561) 659-7070
`Fax: (561) 659-7368
`desau@carltonfields.com
`kgore@carltonfields.com
`ajesteadt@carltonfields.com
`scohen@carltonfields.com
`cmcgowan@calrtonfields.com
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`124558886.5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
`
`Roger S. Kobert (PHV application to be submitted)
`CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
`Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue, 36th Floor
`New York, New York 10174-3699
`Tel: (212) 785-2577
`Fax: (212) 785-5203
`rkobert@carltonfields.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Restaurant Services, Inc.
`
`Joseph M. Vanek
`Michael G. Dickler
`SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
`55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Tel: (312) 641-3200
`Fax: (312) 641-6492
`jvanek@sperling-law.com
`mdickler@sperling-law.com
`
`
`Designated Local Counsel for Plaintiff under N.D.
`Ill. LR 83.15
`
`
`124558886.5
`
`7
`
`