In Re Turkey Antitrust Litigation

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Carina Ventures LLC and Amory Investments LLC, direct purchaser plaintiffs in the In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 1:19-cv-08318), filed an untimely opt-out request for the Cargill settlement on April 22, 2025, one day after the April 21, 2025 deadline. The court denied their Motion to Amend the Preliminary List of Exclusion Requests, finding they failed to follow specific court-ordered opt-out procedures including providing required information such as assignor identities and total value of assigned direct turkey purchases. The court cited Seventh Circuit precedent in Navistar and Broiler Chicken establishing that attorney error, mistake, or failure to follow formal opt-out procedures are not excusable neglect. Both plaintiffs had actual notice through their attorneys and docket filings, and their combined purchases constitute only 2% of overall Settlement Class purchases by Cargill.

Issues

  • The plaintiffs argue they would suffer prejudice if excluded from the settlement because the terms do not include compensation for their sales volume. The court evaluates whether this prejudice is valid, noting that the direct action plaintiffs' sales constitute only 2% of overall Settlement Class purchases and their exclusion would not affect the settlement's viability.
  • The court must determine whether Carina Ventures LLC and Amory Investments LLC's one-day late opt-out request from the Cargill settlement should be excused under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). The court evaluates whether the delay was due to excusable neglect, considering factors including prejudice to the non-moving party, length of delay, reason for delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith.
  • The court examines whether Carina and Amory's separate direct action lawsuits against Cargill constitute a reasonable indication of their intent to opt-out of the class settlement. The Seventh Circuit's precedent in Navistar and Broiler Chicken establishes that filing independent litigation does not satisfy opt-out requirements when specific procedures and deadlines have been set by the court.
  • The court assesses whether Carina and Amory received proper notice of the settlement and opt-out deadline. Evidence shows settlement notices were sent to both turkey producers and their attorneys, with multiple lawyers receiving ECF notices about the proposed settlement and opt-out requirements, establishing that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the deadline.
  • The plaintiffs claim their attorneys' oversight caused the missed deadline, arguing they believed their direct actions already excluded them from the settlement. The court considers whether attorney error or busy schedules qualify as excusable neglect under controlling precedent, noting that inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable.

Holdings

The court denied Carina Ventures LLC and Amory Investments LLC's motion to amend the preliminary list of exclusion requests from the Cargill settlement. The plaintiffs failed to timely opt-out by the April 21, 2025 deadline, submitting their opt-out request one day late on April 22, 2025. The court found their failure to meet the deadline was not excusable neglect under the Pioneer multifactor test, as attorney error and mistake are not sufficient reasons. The court also rejected their argument that filing separate direct actions constituted opt-out, citing Navistar and Broiler Chicken precedent that courts must follow specific opt-out procedures when provided. The court emphasized that deadlines and instructions, once set, must be followed by all litigants.

Remedies

The court denied Carina Ventures LLC and Amory Investments LLC's motion to amend the Preliminary List of Exclusion Requests from the Cargill settlement. Their untimely opt-out request (submitted one day after the April 21, 2025 deadline) was rejected because they failed to follow the specific opt-out procedures outlined in the Court's notice plan, including providing required information such as assignor identities and total value of assigned purchases. The court found no excusable neglect for their one-day delay, as attorney error and busy schedules are not sufficient grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Carina and Amory remain bound by the Cargill settlement and cannot opt-out.

Legal Principles

  • Attorney error or busy schedule is not a sufficient reason to find excusable neglect. The Seventh Circuit has held that 'inattentiveness to the litigation is not excusable' (Matter of Plunkett, 82 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1996)) and 'neglect due to a busy schedule is generally not excusable' (United States v. Cates, 716 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir. 2013)).
  • Seventh Circuit precedent holds that when a court has issued specific opt-out instructions, plaintiffs must follow those procedures and cannot opt-out by other means. This principle was established in Matter of Navistar MaxxForce Engines Mktg., Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litig., 990 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2021) and Matter of Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 133 F.4th 761 (7th Cir. 2025), which rejected the 'reasonable indication' test where specific opt-out procedures exist.
  • The court applied the multifactor excusable neglect test from Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) to evaluate whether Carina and Amory's one-day late opt-out request warrants excusal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Factors considered included danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, length of delay, reason for delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith.
  • Lawyer's knowledge of settlement and opt-out deadlines is imputed to the client, as established in Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002). The court found that Carina and Amory's counsel had actual knowledge of the settlement through multiple channels including ECF notices, docket appearances, and direct communications, making the lack of notice argument invalid.

Precedent Name

  • Murphy v. Eddie Murphy Prods., Inc.
  • Matter of Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.
  • Matter of Navistar MaxxForce Engines Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.
  • United States v. Cates
  • Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship

Cited Statute

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Judge Name

Judge Sunil R. Harjani

Passage Text

  • The Seventh Circuit's decisions in Navistar and Broiler Chicken conclusively held that simply proceeding with a separate action against a defendant is not sufficient to meet the opt-out obligations where a court has delineated specific procedures and deadlines to opt-out.
  • Deadlines for opt-out prevent parties from upending the established class settlement process by coming in late and claiming they are not bound by the settlement. Whether it's one day, months, or years after—late is late. As the Seventh Circuit put it 'missing a filing deadline because of slumber is fatal.'
  • The Court provided specific and detailed instructions on how to opt-out, which they failed to follow. Thus, like the plaintiffs in Navistar and Broiler Chicken, Carina and Amory failed to timely opt-out of the Cargill settlement.