Treehouse Foods, Inc. et al v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al
| Treehouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, Sturm Foods, Inc. and Richard Constantino |
| Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Keurig, Incorporated and Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., and as successor to Keurig, Incorporated |
| 1:2014cv00905 |
| February 11, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Vernon S. Broderick |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
193
ORDER terminating 182 Letter Motion to Seal; terminating 183 Letter Motion to Seal. Accordingly, in the interest of simplifying the resolution of these sealing motions, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docs. 182 and 183. These motions shall be substantively addressed in the main multidistrict litigation docket, No. 14-MD-2542. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 8/2/2023) (rro)
|
|
Filing
192
ORDER: Upon the motion for Jessica Roll for leave to withdraw from this action as counsel for Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The motion is granted. 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Ms. Roll as counsel for Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., and to close ECF No. 1963. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 1/3/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
191
MEMO ENDORSEMENT re: (1835 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) MOTION for Megan P. Fitzgerald to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Treehouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, Sturm Foods, Inc.. ENDORSEMENT: APPLICATION GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 11/1/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC, 1:14-cv-00905-VSB (kv)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL re: (1921 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) Notice (Other) filed by Class Plaintiffs. This Court, having considered Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Jacob O. Onile-Ere as Counsel, and good cause appear ing, HEREBY ORDERS: 1. Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is GRANTED. 2. Attorney Jacob O. Onile-Ere, Esq., is hereby withdrawn as Class Plaintiffs' counsel of record in the above-mentioned caption case. Class Plaintiffs shall continue to be represented by attorneys from Motley Rice LLC, Robins Kaplan LLP, and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Jacob O. Onile-Ere from the service list in this matter and shall no longer send him any notices of filing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 11/1/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDER re: (1819 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) Letter, filed by Kenneth B. Burkley, Sally Rizzo, Henry A. Rocker, Roger Davidson, James G. Long, Todd W. Springer. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for a trial date is DENIED. If necessary, following my resolution of the pending motions on summary judgment, (Docs. 1489, 1493), I will ask the parties to meet and confer and provide me with possible dates for trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 5/16/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
172
ORDER re: (1436 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) Order on Motion to Seal. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED my order at Document 1436 applies to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class certification. I adopt the parties' proposed sealing procedure as outlined in that order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 8/17/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER in case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB; granting in part and denying in part (1412) Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying (1426) Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File in case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDE RED that Defendant's motion for leave to file excess pages, (Doc. 1412), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that I adopt, in part, the page limit proposal submitted by TreeHouse and the DPPs. (See Doc. 1413.) Plaintiffs and Keurig shall each have 115 pages for opening briefs, followed by 115 pages for responsive briefs and 50 pages for reply. In response to TreeHouse's and the DPPs' question, (id. at 3 n.5), I direct the Plaintiffs to file one large memor andum of law divided into sections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' proposal to adjust the briefing schedule, (see Doc. 1413), is DENIED at this time. The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint filing on or before Augu st 3, 2021, indicating whether the parties have agreed on any adjusted briefing schedule and, if not, the parties' respective positions on the briefing schedule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's letter motion for an extension of time, (Doc. 1426), is DENIED at this time. I will entertain extension requests in the upcoming August 3, 2021 filing. The Clerk's office is directed to terminate the open motions at Documents 1412 and 1426. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 7/27/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
167
ORDER GRANTING INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS in case 1:14 cv-00905-VSB; granting (1321) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:14-md-02542 VSB-SLC: it is hereby ORDERED: 1. For purposes of this Order, I adopt the terms and definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise specifically defined herein. 2. I have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all parties to the Action, incl uding all members of the Settlement Class. 3. Notice of the Fee and Expense Application was provided to potential class members in a reasonable manner, and such Notice complies with Rule 23(h)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due proces s requirements. The Notice mailed to all potential class members stated that Settlement Class Counsel could seek attorneys' fees of up to 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund, and further directed class members to a website on which the full moti on for attorneys' fees was accessible as of January 8, 2021. Settlement Class members were given the opportunity to object to the Fee and Expense Application in compliance with Rule 23(h)(2) and no objections to the fee and expense provision of the Settlement Agreements or Fee and Expense Application were made. 4. I hereby award $10,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees (33 1/3% of the total Settlement Fund) to IPP Counsel2. The Court finds IPP Counsel's lodestar, based on their current hourly rates, is $21,148,380.85. This award represents a negative multiplier of 0.49. Having reviewed Settlement Class Counsel's application, I find the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable and appropriat e pursuant to Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000), and other applicable case law. I note that I analyzed each Goldberger factor in detail at the June 4, 2021 fairness hearing, and I incorporate those findings by reference. 5. In making this award of attorneys fees and expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, I have considered and found that: a. The Settlement Agreement has created a Settlement Fund of $31,000,000 in cash for the benefit of the Settlement Cla ss pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; b. Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable proof of claim forms will benefit from the Settlement Agreements because of the efforts of Settlement Class Counsel and Class Representative Plain tiffs; c. The fee sought by Settlement Class Counsel is fair and reasonable; d. Settlement Class Counsel have prosecuted the Action with skill, perseverance, and diligence, as reflected by the substantial Settlement Fund achieved and the positive rec eption of the Settlement Agreement by the Settlement Class; The Court also finds that IPP Counsel have incurred $2,298,015.93 million in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this cas e and necessary given the complex nature and scope of the case. The Court finds that IPP Counsel are entitled to be reimbursed for these costs. I incorporate by reference the findings regarding these litigation costs that I made at the June 4, 2021 f airness hearing. 8. The Court further approves IPPs' request for payment of $451,286.43 and any additional amounts actually incurred up to a combined total amount of $911,286.43, in settlement notice and administration costs payable to JND Legal Administration. If the settlement notice and administration costs payable to JND Legal Administration are to exceed $911,286.43, IPPs shall promptly seek Court authorization and approval of any such additional amount. I incorporate by reference the findings regarding costs incurred by JND Legal Administration that I made at the June 4, 2021 fairness hearing. 9. The Court further approves an incentive award of $3,000 for each of the eleven Class Representative Plaintiffs who had their depositions taken, and $1,500 for the remaining twenty Class Representative Plaintiffs3 (a total of $63,000). This incentive award is justified by: (1) the risks Class Representative Plaintiffs faced in bringing this lawsuit, fina ncial and otherwise; (2) the amount of time and effort spent on this case by Class Representative Plaintiffs; and (3) the benefits Class Representative Plaintiffs helped obtain for the Class Members under the Settlement Agreement. I incorporate by re ference the findings regarding service fees that I made at the June 4, 2021 fairness hearing. 10. The attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards set forth in this Order shall be paid and distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 6/7/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER: As previously ordered, there is a final fairness hearing scheduled for June 4, 2021 over videoconference regarding the proposed settlement between Defendant and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs"). (Doc. 1329.) The Flori da and Illinois Attorneys General (the"Intervenors") have objected to the proposed plan of allocation, (Doc. 1325-1), and the IPPs have responded to that objection, (Doc. 1339). I have listed below a series of questions that I would like the IPPs and the Intervenors to review and prepare for, as I intend to ask the relevant parties about them at the June 4, 2021 hearing. (As further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 6/1/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (va)
|
|
Filing
165
ORDER in case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB; granting (1328) Letter Motion to Seal in case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Competitor Plaintiffs' conditional objection, (Doc. 1326), is DENIED for lack of standing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal at Document 1328 is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 5/26/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER: in case 1:14-cv-00905-VSB; granting (1324) Letter Motion to Seal; granting (1325) Letter Motion for Oral Argument in case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC. ORDERED that TreeHouse and JBR's motion to seal, (Doc. 1324), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are directed to file any response to these objections on or before May 21, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final fairness hearing to evaluate the proposed settlement reached by Defendant and the Indire ct Purchaser Plaintiffs scheduled for June 4, 2021 at 10 AM will be held by videoconference using Microsoft Teams. Any parties or non-parties who wish to attend the hearing must file a letter on or before June 2, 2021 with the names and email addresses for those attending, and my Chambers will subsequently provide a link for the hearing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 5/17/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (ama)
|
|
Filing
163
OPINION AND ORDER re: (1247 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Memorandum by Illinois and Florida Attorneys General addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Illinois Attorney General d ated 2/26/2021. filed by The Illinois Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene filed by the Illinois and Florida Attorneys General is GRANTED. The Clerk's office is d irected to terminate the open motion at Document 1247. SO ORDERED. Motions terminated: (1247 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC) LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Memorandum by Illinois and Florida Attorneys General address ed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Illinois Attorney General dated 2/26/2021. filed by The Illinois Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 4/13/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (kv)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER: I am in receipt of the motion to intervene filed by the Illinois and Florida Attorneys General on February 26, 2021. (Doc. 1247.) Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and/or Defendant shall file any memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to intervene on or before March 29, 2021., (Responses due by 3/29/2021) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/2/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (nb)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' unopposed motion, (Doc. 93), is GRANTED. I hereby set the following settlement procedure: (1) Within 15 days of the date of this Order, Defendant will provide the Claims Administrator with the Rule 23 Class members and Collective Class members list and information as provided in the Settlement Agreement. (2) Within 15 days of Defendant's provision of the Rule 23 Class members and Collective Class members list and information, the Claims A dministrator shall mail the Notices. (3) Rule 23 Class Members will have 60 days from the date the Notice is mailed toopt out of the settlement or object to it.(4) Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement nolater t han 15 days before the fairness hearing.(5) The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on June 4, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.Logistical details regarding the fairness hearing will be placed on the docket at alater date.(6) If the Court grants Plaintiffs 9; motion for final approval of the SettlementAgreement, the Court will issue a Final Order and Judgment. If no party appeals he Court's Final Order and Judgment, the "Effective Date" of the settlement willbe the date 30 days after ent ry of such Order.(7) If rehearing, reconsideration or appellate review is sought, the "Effective Date"shall be the day after all appeals are resolved in favor of final approval.(8) The Claims Administrator will disburse settlement checks to the Rule 23 Classmembers and Collective Class members, Class Counsel's attorneys' fees andexpenses to Class Counsel, the Service Awards, and the SettlementAdministrator's fee as provided in the Settlement Agreement.(9) The parties shall abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Fairness Hearing set for 6/4/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/16/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC et al. (rro)
|
|
Filing
140
OPINION & ORDER re: (582 in 1:14-md-02542-VSB-HBP) MOTION for Reconsideration re; (581) Memorandum & Opinion, Motion for Reconsideration in Part. filed by All Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. For the reasons stated herein, the IPPs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motion at Document 582. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 6/25/2019) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-HBP et al.(ks)
|
|
Filing
137
OPINION AND ORDER. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Protective Order permits a party that receives, through inadvertence, a document or other information which the adverse party asserts is privileged, may, pending a det ermination of the claim of privilege, use the content of that document or information for the limited purpose of challenging the assertion of privilege to the extent that the receiving party learned of the contents of the document in issue prior to t he producing party's assertion of privilege. So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 5/7/2019) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02542-VSB-HBP et al., as per Chambers. Copies transmitted to: All Counsel. Hon. Barbara S. Jones, United States District Judge (retired). (rjm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
