In re: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation
- Shelby
- 3:25-cv-07996
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No. III): Judge Shelby’s panel transferred five related actions to Utah for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the five listed broiler-chicken grower antitrust actions, as well as the parties and courts involved in coordinating their pretrial proceedings.
What happened
In In re: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation (No. III), five lawsuits in five federal districts involved claims that chicken processors agreed not to compete for farmers who raise broiler chickens and shared cost information through Agri Stats. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act on behalf of proposed nationwide classes.
The plaintiffs asked to combine the cases in Utah. Some defendants proposed Arkansas or Illinois instead, while the plaintiffs agreed that Illinois could be an alternative. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found common factual questions and concluded that combining the cases would reduce duplicate discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial decisions, and conserve resources.
The panel ordered the five listed actions transferred to the District of Utah for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, with that court’s consent, and assigned them to Judge Robert J. Shelby. Judge Shelby had previously handled related litigation involving similar claims.
The detailed version
- In re: Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litigation · No. 3:25-cv-07996
- Shelby
- Dec. 16, 2025
Background
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize five actions pending in five federal districts. The cases concern allegations that chicken processors, called “Integrators,” agreed not to compete for “Broiler Grow-Out Services”—the services provided by farmers, called “Growers,” who raise broiler chickens under contracts with processors. The plaintiffs also challenge the processors’ submission of cost information to Agri Stats, a third party that uses the information in benchmarking reports.
The plaintiffs in each action asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyard Act on behalf of the same proposed nationwide classes of Growers. The parties also identified a related action pending in the District of Delaware as a potential tag-along action. The Panel noted that substantially similar litigation had previously been centralized as MDL No. 2977 and had proceeded for nearly eight years. Judge Robert J. Shelby had presided over that related litigation.
The parties’ positions
The plaintiffs sought centralization in the District of Utah. Responding defendants proposed the Western District of Arkansas or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. In their reply, the plaintiffs agreed that the Northern District of Illinois would be a suitable alternative transferee district.
Ruling
The Panel found that the actions involved common questions of fact and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. It specifically concluded that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings—including rulings concerning class certification and evidentiary motions—and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the courts.
The Panel ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A be transferred to the District of Utah and, with that court’s consent, assigned to the Honorable Robert J. Shelby for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The order transferred the cases for pretrial coordination; the opinion did not decide the underlying antitrust or Packers and Stockyard Act claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.