In re Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust Litigation
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
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
- In Re Transocean Ltd. Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
- In Re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2011
- In Re BP Products North America, Inc., Antitrust Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2008
3Cited by28 opinions
- In re Adderall XR (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
- In re Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
- In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
- Dunn v. Takata Corporation [Economic Loss Class Actions]District Court, S.D. Florida · 2020
- Dunn v. Takata Corporation [Economic Loss Class Actions]District Court, S.D. Florida · 2020
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.