Legal Opinion
In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 7, 2012No. MDL Docket No. 1935; Civil Action No. 1:08-MDL-1935PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*205 MEMORANDUM
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.
Presently before the court are two motions in limine to exclude expert testimony (Docs. 1062,1066) filed by Defendants The Hershey Company (“Hershey”), Mars, Inc. (“Mars”), and Nestlé U.S.A., Inc. (“Nestlé”), (collectively “Defendants”), and a motion for class certification (Doe. 995) filed by Direct Purchaser plaintiffs. For the reasons that follow, the motions in limine will be denied and the motion for class certification will be granted.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a multi-district antitrust ease brought pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2014
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.