Legal Opinion
In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 20, 2011No. MDL No. 2002; No. 08-md-02002PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*293 MEMORANDUM
GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs have moved for the remand of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.
I. Background
Plaintiffs are six direct purchasers of eggs and egg products who originally filed their Complaint in the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District, the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. As the basis for their single claim, Plaintiffs exclusively rely on Kansas state law in asserting that various egg and egg product producers and trade groups conspired to…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- Pharmacann Penn, LLC v. BV Dev. Superstition RR, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Pharmacann Penn, LLC v. BV Dev. Superstition RR, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018