Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al.; Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al.
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-01750
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats and Sysco Corp. v. Cargill, Judge Tunheim granted JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider whether a prior settlement agreement is legally enforceable under Minnesota law.
Sysco Corporation, Carina Ventures LLC (which holds Sysco's assigned antitrust claims), and the JBS defendants (JBS USA Food Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Swift Beef Company, and JBS S.A.) are directly affected, as the court's upcoming reconsideration could reinstate or finally extinguish Sysco's antitrust claims against JBS. Parties in related pork and cattle/beef antitrust litigations may also be watching the outcome.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges that the defendant companies — major beef packers and their affiliates — conspired beginning at least January 1, 2015 to artificially limit the supply of beef in the U.S. wholesale market in order to raise prices. The complaint claims Sysco Corp. paid higher prices for beef as a result and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, with a jury trial demanded. The complaint also alleges that a confidential witness and government investigations by the DOJ and USDA corroborate the existence of the alleged conspiracy.
What happened
In two related federal antitrust cases — Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al. (Civil No. 21-1374) and Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al. (Civil No. 22-1750) — the court had previously ruled in March 2025 that a settlement agreement between Sysco Corporation and a group of defendants known collectively as JBS was enforceable, and dismissed Sysco's claims against JBS on that basis. A Seventh Circuit appeals court decision issued in 2026, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, then called into question the reasoning the court had relied on, specifically the legal principle of issue preclusion — which generally prevents a party from re-litigating a question already decided in another case.
All three affected parties — JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC (to which Sysco had assigned its claims following a separate settlement with its litigation funder) — jointly asked the court for permission to file a formal motion for reconsideration. Under the court's local rules, a party must show compelling circumstances and receive court permission before filing such a motion, which is meant only to correct clear legal or factual errors or to address newly discovered evidence, not to re-argue previously decided issues.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the request, finding that because the Seventh Circuit decision reversed the prior appeals court ruling on which this court's issue-preclusion analysis was based, compelling circumstances exist. The parties are directed to brief whether, under Minnesota law, JBS and Sysco actually entered into an enforceable agreement — and to address what relief should be granted if the court decides to set aside its prior ruling.
The detailed version
- Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al.; Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al. · No. 0:22-cv-01750
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 6, 2026
Background
These two cases arise within large multidistrict antitrust litigations concerning pork and cattle/beef markets. On March 25, 2025, the court issued an order granting motions by defendants JBS USA Food Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Swift Beef Company, and JBS S.A. (collectively "JBS") to enforce a purported settlement with plaintiff Sysco Corporation ("Sysco") and to dismiss Sysco's claims against JBS. The court's prior ruling rested on two legal grounds: (1) issue preclusion — a doctrine preventing re-litigation of issues already decided in prior proceedings — and (2) Minnesota contract law.
Subsequently, Sysco assigned its claims to Carina Ventures LLC as a result of a separate settlement between Sysco and its litigation funder, Burford Capital Limited.
The New Development
On March 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 167 F.4th 430 (7th Cir. 2026), which reversed the prior Seventh Circuit ruling that had formed the basis for this court's issue-preclusion analysis. The Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, concluded that JBS and Sysco had agreed "in principle on the most important terms but not all material terms," and therefore the settlement agreement was not enforceable. While the Seventh Circuit applied Illinois law (not Minnesota law), its reversal eliminated the issue-preclusion effect that this court had previously relied upon.
In light of that reversal, JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC jointly filed letters in both above-captioned cases on March 20, 2026, seeking leave — that is, court permission — to file a motion for reconsideration of the March 25, 2025 Order.
Legal Standard for Reconsideration
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party may file a motion for reconsideration only after demonstrating compelling circumstances and receiving the court's permission. Reconsideration motions serve a narrow purpose: to correct manifest (obvious) errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. They are not a vehicle to re-litigate old issues, but rather to provide relief in extraordinary circumstances. (Citing Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407 (8th Cir. 1988); Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. United States Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346 (D. Minn. 1993); Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 1999).)
Court's Ruling
Judge Tunheim granted the joint request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Because the Seventh Circuit decision that had underpinned the court's issue-preclusion analysis was reversed, issue preclusion is no longer applicable to the court's prior ruling. The court will therefore allow the parties to brief whether, under Minnesota law and as a matter of law, JBS and Sysco entered into an enforceable agreement. The parties are also directed to address what specific relief they seek if the court ultimately decides to vacate (set aside) its prior March 25, 2025 Order.
Scheduling
The court set the following deadlines: - Motion for reconsideration and supporting memorandum: due no later than April 21, 2026. - Any party wishing to file an opposition must notify the court by April 22, 2026, and file the opposition by May 5, 2026. - All filings must comply with applicable Local Rules regarding page limits, word counts, and filing procedures.
What Remains Open
The court has not yet decided whether the settlement agreement between JBS and Sysco is enforceable under Minnesota law, or whether it will vacate its March 25, 2025 Order. Those questions will be addressed after the parties complete briefing on the motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.