United States Department of Justice v. Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce et al, No. 1:2020mc00080 - Document 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER TERMINATING FINAL JUDGMENT granting 1 MISCELLANEOUS CASE INITIATING DOCUMENT - MOTION To Terminate A Legacy Antitrust Judgment. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said final judgment is terminated. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 10/2/2020) (jca)

Download PDF
United States Department of Justice v. Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING FINAL JUDGMENT v. GREATER NEW YORK LIVE POULTRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, et al., 20 Misc. 80 In Equity No. 52-30 Defendants. PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: WHEREAS, the Court having received the motion of Plaintiff United States of America for termination of the final judgment entered in the above-captioned case, and the Court having considered all papers filed in connection with this motion (Mot. (Dkt. No. 1)); WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides that "[o]n a motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . [when] applying it prospectively is no longer equitable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5); WHEREAS, the judgment in this case was entered in 1932, 88 years ago (Judgment (Dkt. No. 1-3)); WHEREAS, the three corporate defendants appear to no longer exist based on a search of corporate records with the New York Department of State Division of Corporations and other publicly available records (Reicher Decl. (Dkt. No. 1-5) ¶¶ 5-6); WHEREAS, the 49 individual defendants have almost certainly passed away or retired from employment, having been of working age 88 years ago (id. ¶ 7); WHEREAS, on June 7, 2019, Plaintiff listed the judgment in this case on its website, described its intent to move to terminate the judgment, and invited public comments, of which none were received (Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 1-2) at 11); and Dockets.Justia.com WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Court deems that terminating the antitrust judgment is consistent with the public interest. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (a court “may reject an uncontested [termination] only if it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result”), it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said final judgment is terminated. Dated: New York, New York October 2, 2020 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.