IN RE: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No. III)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III) 	MDL No. 3167
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in
the District of Utah. This litigation consists of five actions pending in five districts, as listed on
Schedule A. 	The parties have notified the Panel of a related action pending in the District of
Delaware.1 Responding defendants2 suggest centralization in the Western District of Arkansas or,
alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. 	In their reply, plaintiffs agree that the Northern
District of Illinois would be a suitable alternative transferee district.
The Panel previously granted centralization of substantially similar actions brought by
plaintiffs against different defendants. See In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No.
II), MDL No. 2977, 509 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2020).3 MDL No. 2977 proceeded for nearly
* 	Judge Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision of this matter.
1 	This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
2 	Mountaire Farms Inc.; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.; Peco Foods, Inc.; House Of
Raeford Farms Inc.; House Of Raeford Farms Of Louisiana, LLC; George’s Inc.; George’s
Chicken, LLC; Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc.; George’s Foods, LLC; George’s Processing, Inc.;
Foster Farms, LLC; Amick Farms, LLC; Case Foods, Inc.; Case Farms Processing, Inc.; Fieldale
Farms Corp.; Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc.; Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC; Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC; Mar-
Jac Poultry, LLC; Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc.; O.K. Foods, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Allen Harim
Foods LLC; Harrison Poultry, Inc.; and Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms.
3 	In 2018, we denied centralization of two of the MDL No. 2977 actions because, at that
time, the litigation consisted of only two actions, which were brought by the same plaintiffs against
different defendants. 	See In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1366
(J.P.M.L. 2018). Plaintiffs’ claims initially were brought in a single action in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma, which were before District of Utah Judge Robert J. Shelby, sitting by designation.
Judge Shelby dismissed two groups of defendants on personal jurisdiction and venue grounds,
(continued)
Case MDL No. 3167 Document 64 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
five years in the Eastern District of Oklahoma before Judge Shelby until it was resolved in January
2025. 	The actions in that litigation shared factual questions arising from allegations that
defendants agreed not to compete for “Broiler Grow-Out Services,” i.e., the services of farmers
(referred to by the parties as Growers) who raise broiler chickens under contracts with chicken
processors such as defendants (called Integrators). 	Specifically, plaintiffs alleged an agreement
among defendants not to recruit or contract with Growers contracted by another defendant or co-
conspirator. They also challenged as anticompetitive defendants’ submission of cost information
to Agri Stats—a third party—for use in benchmarking reports. All plaintiffs asserted claims under
the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act with respect to the same putative nationwide
classes of Growers.
After MDL No. 2977 concluded, plaintiffs filed the Eastern District of Oklahoma action
listed on Schedule A against 26 new Integrator defendants. 	Soon thereafter, 	prompted by
plaintiffs’ concerns about the need to ensure personal jurisdiction in the event of an adverse
personal jurisdiction ruling in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, they filed additional suits against
subsets of the same Integrator defendants in other districts.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the District of Utah will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. 	Like the MDL No. 2977 actions, these actions share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services. 	They also
challenge as anticompetitive defendants’ submission of cost information to Agri Stats. Plaintiffs
in each action assert the same claims under the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act
on behalf of the same putative nationwide classes of Growers. 	Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to class
certification and evidentiary motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.
We find that the District of Utah is the most appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Judge Shelby has unparallelled familiarity with the claims and issues in this litigation, as he
presided over the related actions comprising MDL No. 2977 for nearly eight years. 	We are
confident that Judge Shelby will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course.
leading plaintiffs to file the second action against these two defendant groups. 	We found that
informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and the courts constituted a preferable
alternative to centralization at that time. Id. at 1367.
Case MDL No. 3167 Document 64 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
District of Utah and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert J. Shelby,
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton 	Roger T. Benitez
Dale A. Kimball
Case MDL No. 3167 Document 64 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III) 	MDL No. 3167
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. FOSTER FARMS, LLC, C.A. No. 3:25−07996
Northern District of Illinois
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. PECO FOODS INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−11348
Eastern District of Oklahoma
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:25−00217
District of South Carolina
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:25−12629
Western District of Virginia
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. GEORGE'S INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25−00099
Case MDL No. 3167 Document 64 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4