A federal judge has denied a renewed motion for class certification by indirect purchasers in the egg price-fixing antitrust litigation.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shot down the indirect purchasers' second attempt at gaining class status in a Tuesday order and memorandum.

While the indirect purchasers in the case failed to gain certification, the direct purchaser class was certified in September 2015. That class entered into a $75 million settlement with Michael Foods, a subsidiary of packaged food producing giant Post.

The litigation has seen settlements from other parties. In July 2016, defendant Midwest Poultry Services agreed to pay $2.5 million; National Food Corp. agreed to pay $1 million; United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers agreed to jointly pay $500,000; NuCal Foods agreed to pay $1.425 million; and Hillandale Farms agreed to pay $3 million, according to an opinion issued by Pratter at the time.

The plaintiffs in the litigation claim the nation's major egg producers were involved in a conspiracy to control and limit the supply of eggs in an effort to increase prices allegedly through short-term production restriction, such as slaughtering hens early, a pretextual animal welfare program, and a "calculated" series of exports of eggs at below-market prices.

Originally, the indirect purchasers limited their proposed class to members in 21 states. In their renewed request, they expanded it to include the entire United States.

But Pratter in her Tuesday opinion said that the plaintiffs still failed to address cohesiveness in their proposed class that is, according to Pratter, by demonstrating an actual or threatened injury, "from an impending violation of the antitrust laws or from a contemporary violation likely to continue or recur"; causation; and a likelihood that the relief requested will remedy the injury.

And as before, Pratter said the indirect purchasers failed to show a common impact between all of the potential class members.

"Plaintiffs 'have not shown that they can prove actual or potential injury, causation, or redressability on a common basis because of the disparate factual circumstances among' that portion of the class," Pratter said, citing her previous opinion.

Additionally, she said the class failed to show future harm.

"The [indirect purchaser] plaintiffs have not provided any meaningful analysis of the threat of future harm, much less shown how future harm could be proven on a class-wide basis," Pratter said.

Krishna B. Narine represented the indirect purchasers and did not respond to a request for comment.

Carrie C. Mahan represents Michael Foods and did not respond to a request for comment.