Treehouse Foods, Inc. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.

Background

The order concerns a proposed settlement between a defendant and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in related antitrust actions involving single-serve coffee products. A final fairness hearing was scheduled for June 4, 2021, by videoconference. The Florida and Illinois Attorneys General intervened and objected to the proposed plan for allocating settlement funds. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to that objection.

Questions for the Parties

The court listed questions it intended to raise at the fairness hearing. It asked whether the mediator had been used in the usual way and whether a mediator would ordinarily decide allocation issues based on rights created by state law. The court also asked whether it had authority to change the allocation or only to decide whether the settlement was reasonable.

The questions directed to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs addressed why they had not retained separate counsel for Florida and Illinois consumers, whether that issue had been considered during the settlement process, what information had been provided to the mediator, and how Florida and Illinois consumers were treated. The court also asked whether all states dismissed in its April 22, 2019 opinion and order were included in the proposed settlement and, if not, why those states would receive no recovery.

The questions directed to the Attorneys General addressed when separate counsel is required for certain class members and whether different state-law rules justify different settlement allocations. The court asked the Illinois Attorney General about restrictions on indirect-purchaser class actions under the Illinois Antitrust Act. It asked the Florida Attorney General about limits on indirect purchasers' recovery under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the effect of the court's prior dismissal of claims involving several states, and the relevance of punitive damages available under Missouri law but not under the Florida statute.

Action Taken and Effect

Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order listing questions for the parties to review and prepare for the scheduled fairness hearing. The order does not approve or reject the proposed settlement, decide whether the allocation is reasonable, or alter the allocation. It also does not state a final ruling on the Attorneys General's objection.

Classification

This is an ancillary case-management order rather than a ruling on the merits or a final disposition. It is classified as an other matter because the court listed questions and did not grant, deny, dismiss, remand, or enter judgment on a motion or claim.