Legal Opinion

In re Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided April 17, 2012No. MDL No. 2340PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in an action pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania move to centralize this litigation in that district. Their motion encompasses four actions — movants’ action and three actions pending in the Northern District of California, as listed on Schedule A. Responding defendants1 support centralization, but in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California actions did not submit a response.

Ater considering all argument of counsel, we will deny the motion, although we…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Transocean Ltd. Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
  2. In Re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2011
  3. In Re BP Products North America, Inc., Antitrust Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2008

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. In re Adderall XR (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
  2. In re Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
  3. In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
  4. Dunn v. Takata Corporation [Economic Loss Class Actions]District Court, S.D. Florida · 2020
  5. Dunn v. Takata Corporation [Economic Loss Class Actions]District Court, S.D. Florida · 2020

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API