Maplevale Farms, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

N.D. Ill.July 22, 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To: Certain DAP Actions Listed in in Footnote 11 Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 CASE FARMS DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF COMPLAINTS AS TO CASE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Case Farms, LLC, Case Farms Processing, Inc. and Case Foods, Inc. (“Case”) hereby move for an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against them in the operative Complaints and Amended Complaints listed in the prayer for relief herein that were filed in the fifteen DAP Actions set forth in footnote 1 below (collectively, the “Complaints”). In support of this Motion, Case submits (a) a Memorandum in Support of Case Farm Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Direct Action Plaintiff Complaints as to Case and (b) a Request for Judicial Notice and Incorporation by Reference, and further states as follows: 1. The Complaints assert two types of claims against Case. Each Complaint includes one or two claims against Case asserting a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. Two of the Complaints – the 1 This Motion relates to the following fifteen Actions: Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-6316; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv- 4616; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Incorporated, et al., 18-cv-5351; The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-4534; Shamrock Foods Company, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18- cv-7284; Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 19-cv-1283; United Supermarkets, LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-6693; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-5877; Darden Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 19-cv-0530; Jetro Holdings, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-4000; Maximum Quality Foods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-6673; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 19-cv- 0354; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., 18-cv-0245; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., 19-cv-2805; and Conagra Brands, Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., 19-cv- 2190. Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 2829 Filed: 07/22/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:187149 2 Complaints filed by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (“Checkers,” R.2113) and Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“AWG,” R.2092) – assert pendent claims for violations of certain state statutes. Claims for Violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1. 2. The Sherman Act claims asserted in the Complaints all allege that Case violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 by entering into an agreement or conspiracy with the other Defendants to cut or restrain production of “Broiler” chickens. 3. The Sherman Act claims asserted against Case by three of the Direct Action Plaintiffs – AWG (R.2092), Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (R.2143), and ConAgra Brands, Inc. (R.2264) – fail to state a claim, and should be dismissed because they do not allege that Case engaged in the alleged parallel conduct upon which the Sherman Act claims are based: cutting or restraining production of Broilers. 4. The Sherman Act claims asserted against Case in all of the Complaints fail to state a claim, and should be dismissed, because the Complaints do not plausibly allege that Case entered into any agreement with the other Defendants to cut or restrain production. Pendent State Law Claims. 5. The single state law claim asserted against Case in the Checkers Complaint (R.2113 Count IV), and the two state law claims asserted against Case in the AWG Complaint (R.2092 Counts IX and X), are all premised and dependent upon the same core assertion that Case and the other Defendants entered into an agreement or conspiracy to cut or restrain production of Broilers. 6. Because the Complaints fail to plausibly allege that Case entered into any such agreement, the state law claims also fail to state claims for relief, and should also be dismissed. Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 2829 Filed: 07/22/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:187149 3 WHEREFORE, Case respectfully requests that the Court enter an order and judgment: (a) dismissing with prejudice the following Complaints and claims against Case:  Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2090, R.2092 (Paragraph VIII, 15 U.S.C. §1; Paragraph IX, Wisconsin Antitrust Act; Paragraph X, Tennessee Trade Practices Act)  Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2094, R.2096 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc.’s Amended Complaint, R.2099, R.2100 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  The Kroger Co., et al’s First Amended Complaint, R.2105, R.2106 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Shamrock Foods Company, et al.’s Amended Complaint, R.2107, R.2110 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.’s Amended Complaint, R.2111, R.2113 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1; Count IV, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)  United Supermarkets, LLC, et al.’s Amended Complaint, R.2114, R.2115 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2124, R.2125 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Darden Restaurants, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2126 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Jetro Holdings, LLC’s First Amended Complaint, R.2129, R.2130 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Maximum Quality Foods, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2133, R.2134 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2135 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2140, R.2143 (Paragraph IX, 15 U.S.C. §1)  Save Mart Supermarkets’ Complaint, R.2163 (Counts I and II, 15 U.S.C. § 1)  Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.’s First Amended Complaint, R.2264 (Count I, 15 U.S.C. § 1); and (b) granting such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: July 22, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Joseph D. Carney__________________ Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 2829 Filed: 07/22/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:187149 4 Joseph D. Carney (0010886) JOSEPH D. CARNEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC Mailing Address: 1540 Peach Drive Avon, OH 44044 Tel: (440) 289-5161 Fax: (866) 270-1221 jdc@jdcarney.com Thomas M. Staunton (6217164) Daniel M. Feeney (6224893) MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 263-3700 Fax: (312) 263-3270 dfeeney@millershakman.com tstaunton@millershakman.com Daniel R. Karon (6207193) KARON LLC 700 West St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 622-1851 Fax: (216) 241-8175 dkaron@karonllc.com Deborah A. Klar D. KLAR LAW 2934 ½ Beverly Glen Circle, Suite 761 Bel Air, California 90077-1724 Tel: (310) 858-9500 dklar@dklarlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Case Foods, Inc., Case Farms, LLC and Case Farms Processing, Inc. Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 2829 Filed: 07/22/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:187149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Daniel M. Feeney, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Case Farms Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Certain Direct Action Plaintiff Complaints as to Case was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on July 22, 2019, which constitutes service on counsel of record who are registered electronic filing users. Dated: July 22, 2019 /s/ Daniel M. Feeney Daniel M. Feeney Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 2829 Filed: 07/22/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:187149