Legal Opinion

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 2012No. MDL No. 2002; No. 08-md-02002PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*875 OPINION

GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Indirect purchasers1 of domestic eggs and egg products charge producers of those goods, and the producers’ trade groups, with conspiring to manipulate the supply of, and thereby fix prices for, domestically-sold eggs and egg products. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (hereinafter, the “IPSAC”)2 alleges violations of federal and state law. The 22 state jurisdictions at issue geographically reach considerably farther than a rooster’s most vigorous crows can be heard. In total, the IPSAC…

2Cases cited197 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
  2. Alhassid v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2014
  3. Wilson v. Eyerbank, N.A.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2015
  4. Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V.District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
  5. In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

41 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