Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al.; Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al.
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-01750
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al. and Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al., Judge John R. Tunheim granted JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC permission to formally ask the court to reconsider its March 2025 order enforcing a settlement agreement between JBS and Sysco, after a federal appeals court reversed a related decision that the district court had relied upon.
The parties directly affected are Sysco Corporation (plaintiff), JBS USA Food Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Swift Beef Company, and JBS S.A. (defendants collectively as JBS), and Carina Ventures LLC (assignee of Sysco's claims). More broadly, this order may be of interest to litigants and attorneys in large antitrust cases involving settlement enforceability, and to those following the In re Pork Antitrust Litigation and In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation cases.
What happened
In Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al. (Civil No. 21-1374) and Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al. (Civil No. 22-1750), the court is revisiting a March 25, 2025 order that had enforced a settlement agreement between defendant JBS (a group of meat companies: JBS USA Food Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Swift Beef Company, and JBS S.A.) and plaintiff Sysco Corporation, a food distribution company. That earlier order had dismissed Sysco's claims against JBS based on the settlement. The court's 2025 ruling relied in part on a legal doctrine called issue preclusion — which prevents parties from re-arguing issues already decided — and on Minnesota contract law.
In March 2026, all parties involved — JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC (a company that received Sysco's legal claims through a settlement with Sysco's litigation funder, Burford Capital Limited) — jointly asked the court for permission to seek reconsideration. They pointed to a new decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, decided in 2026) that reversed an earlier ruling the district court had relied on. The Seventh Circuit found, under Illinois law, that a similar settlement agreement between JBS and another party was unenforceable because the parties had agreed 'in principle' on major terms but had not agreed on all material terms.
Judge Tunheim granted the request, finding that the Seventh Circuit's reversal removes the issue-preclusion basis for the March 2025 order, making reconsideration appropriate under the local rules' 'compelling circumstances' standard. The parties are now ordered to file a motion for reconsideration by April 21, 2026, addressing whether JBS and Sysco formed an enforceable agreement under Minnesota law. Any party opposing the motion must notify the court by April 22, 2026, and file an opposition by May 5, 2026. The parties must also address what specific relief they seek if the court vacates the prior order.
The detailed version
- Sysco Corp. v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al.; Sysco Corp. v. Cargill Inc. et al. · No. 0:22-cv-01750
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 6, 2026
Background
These cases arise from large antitrust (anti-competitive business practices) class-action litigations in the pork and cattle/beef industries. The specific disputes at issue here involve plaintiff Sysco Corporation's claims against defendants JBS USA Food Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Swift Beef Company, and JBS S.A. (collectively, "JBS").
On March 25, 2025, the court issued an order granting JBS's motions to enforce an alleged settlement agreement with Sysco and to dismiss Sysco's claims against JBS. That ruling rested on two legal bases: (1) issue preclusion — a doctrine preventing relitigation of issues already decided in prior proceedings — and (2) Minnesota contract law.
Separately, Sysco assigned its claims to Carina Ventures LLC as a result of a settlement between Sysco and its litigation funder, Burford Capital Limited.
Basis for Reconsideration Request
On March 20, 2026, JBS, Sysco, and Carina Ventures LLC jointly filed a letter in both cases requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j). The basis for the request was a then-recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 167 F.4th 430 (7th Cir. 2026), which reversed a prior ruling the district court had relied upon when applying issue preclusion.
In Broiler Chicken, the Seventh Circuit found — under Illinois law — that a settlement agreement between JBS and another party (Sysco, in that case) was unenforceable because the parties had agreed "in principle on the most important terms but not all material terms." This reversal directly undermined the issue-preclusion pillar of the March 2025 order in the present cases.
Legal Standard for Reconsideration
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party seeking to file a motion to reconsider must first obtain permission from the court by demonstrating compelling circumstances. Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: correcting manifest (obvious) errors of law or fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence. See Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). They are not a vehicle for relitigating settled issues, but rather for relief in extraordinary circumstances. Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. United States Dept. of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993); Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999).
The Court's Ruling
Judge Tunheim granted the request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Because the Seventh Circuit reversed the earlier decision that formed the basis for applying issue preclusion in the March 2025 order, the court found that the issue-preclusion rationale no longer holds. As a result, the court will allow the parties to brief the remaining question: whether, under Minnesota law and as a matter of law, JBS and Sysco entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.
The court distinguished the applicable law: the Seventh Circuit's Broiler Chicken decision applied Illinois law and found the agreement unenforceable on the facts there, but the present cases will be analyzed under Minnesota contract law. The court has not yet decided whether the settlement is enforceable — it is simply allowing the parties to argue that question.
Briefing Schedule
- Motion for reconsideration and supporting memorandum: due April 21, 2026 - Any party wishing to oppose must notify the court: by April 22, 2026 - Opposition memorandum (if any): due May 5, 2026 - Parties must also address what specific relief they seek if the court vacates its prior March 25, 2025 order - All filings must comply with Local Rules regarding page limits, word counts, and filing procedures
What Has Not Been Decided
The court has not reconsidered or vacated the March 25, 2025 order. It has only granted permission to file the motion for reconsideration. The underlying question — whether JBS and Sysco formed an enforceable settlement agreement under Minnesota law — remains to be briefed and decided.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.