From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2012
MDL No. 2002 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2012)

Opinion

MDL No. 2002 08-md-2002

12-14-2012

In re: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS


ORDER

AND NOW, this 14thday of December, 2012, upon consideration of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 613-14) and reply in support thereof (Docket No. 628), as well as the responses thereto filed by the Hillandale Defendants (Docket Nos. 618, 629), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion is DENIED in part with prejudice with respect to the proposed claims against Hillandale East and Hillandale Farms, Inc.
2. The motion is GRANTED in part with respect to the proposed claims against Hillandale Gettysburg and Hillandale PA and the proposed allegations regarding fraudulent concealment.
3. Plaintiffs shall file a revised Third Amended Complaint consistent with this Memorandum by no later than January 4, 2013. Prior to filing the complaint, Plaintiffs shall share the revised complaint with Defendants, including providing
the Defendants with a redline copy, to confirm that the complaint comports with the Court's Memorandum.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2012
MDL No. 2002 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2012)
Case details for

In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.

Case Details

Full title:In re: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Dec 14, 2012

Citations

MDL No. 2002 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2012)