Legal Opinion
In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 22, 2016No. Master File NO. 06-0620PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*166MEMORANDUM
O’NEILL, District Judge
In this long-running antitrust litigation, plaintiffs1 claim defendants acted in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act by conspiring “to set artificially-inflated prices” for fresh agaricus mushrooms, see Dkt. No. 185 at ¶ 93, and through the implementation of a supply control scheme related to the production of mushrooms. Id. at ¶ 94. A putative class of plaintiffs—who classify themselves as direct purchasers of fresh agaricus mushrooms—now seek certification of a class of:
[a]ll persons and entities in the…
2Cases cited80 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- BRAUN v. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
- FROMPOVICZ v. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
- IN RE: MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
- Kenneth Hasson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, Comcast Corporation, Citrix Systems, Inc., and Cloud Software Group, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.