Triumph Foods urged a Minnesota federal court to reconsider throwing out claims against it concerning alleged price-fixing in the pork industry, saying it shouldn't be held responsible for the alleged actions of hog farmers and the company that sells the pork it processes.

Triumph said in a motion on Wednesday seeking reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling that it stemmed from the pork purchasers convincing the court to hold it responsible for alleged reductions in hog supplies because the farms that supply the hogs hold minority stakes in the company.

"But there is no evidence that those non-party hog farms ever reduced market hog production, or did so in furtherance of any conspiracy," the motion said. "And more to the point, there is no legal theory or evidence to support connecting Triumph to them, much less holding Triumph liable for under this fabricated narrative regarding non-parties."

The alleged conspiracy also requires controlling the sale and pricing of pork, but Triumph said a marketing agreement in place since 2004 gives major pork producer Seaboard Foods LLC the exclusive right to sell, market and price Triumph's pork.

The buyers convinced the court at summary judgment that Triumph should be held liable for Seaboard's sales anyway because Seaboard was acting as Triumph's agent. But the motion on Wednesday said there is no evidence supporting this claim, only refuting it, and no evidence excluding the possibility that Triumph acted independently.

"At summary judgment, plaintiffs told the court they had evidence they do not have, and that they could support liability against Triumph using unpled, new legal theories that — once appropriately analyzed — do not apply," the motion said.

U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim granted Triumph's motion seeking permission to file the motion for reconsideration earlier this month, limited to the single enterprise and agency theories that were found to connect the pork processor to the alleged conspiracy.

The claims from separate groups of buyers, along with a slew of direct actions, accuse some of the country's largest pork processors of conspiring to restrict supply and stabilize pork prices by sharing information through the data analytics and consulting firm Agri Stats Inc.

The case has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, including an $85 million deal struck between consumers and Tyson Foods late last month.

Judge Tunheim mostly denied a flurry of summary judgment motions from Agri Stats and the processors in March, allowing only Hormel Foods Corp. to escape all the claims, finding it refused to formally subscribe to Agri Stats' sales analysis program.

The processors later called on the judge to recuse himself and vacate the summary judgment ruling based on one of his clerks' past work with a firm that represents buyers in the case. But Judge Tunheim denied the request earlier this month, noting that the clerk did not work on the current case and had been screened from work on the case during his clerkship.

Triumph said in its motion for reconsideration on Wednesday that unlike the other processors named in the case, it is strictly a processor that purchases hogs from producers, "including (but not limited to)" its members. These members are distinct and independently owned and controlled business that remain competitors in hog production, the motion said, and none of them own a majority stake in Triumph.

"There is no evidence that Triumph owns and controls its members, and any such conclusion makes no sense, because as is always the case for LLCs, the members own the LLC not the other way around," the motion said.

The motion said there is also no evidence that Triumph has any right to control Seaboard, meaning there's no evidence of an agency relationship between the companies. A decades-old marketing agreement gives Seaboard final and sole discretion over how Triumph pork is marketed and sold.

The agreement also explicitly states that it "does not create a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship between the parties," the motion said.

Triumph also contended that when looking only at its own conduct, rather than that of its members and Seaboard, all that's left is evidence showing that Triumph broke pork processing records every year of the alleged conspiracy while investing millions of dollars to expand.

"This matters," the motion said. "As the court made clear, summary judgment for a particular defendant was mandated if a defendant did not engage in any one of the various forms of parallel conduct alleged by plaintiffs."

Representatives for Triumph and the buyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The consumer indirect purchasers are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen, Elaine T. Byszewski and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Daniel E. Gustafson, Daniel C. Hedlund, Michelle J. Looby and Joshua J. Rissman of Gustafson Gluek PLLC.

The institutional indirect purchasers are represented by Shawn M. Raiter of Larson & King LLP, and Michael J. Flannery of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Sysco Corp. is represented by James J. McGuire of Greenspoon Marder LLP.

The Kroger Co., Albertsons Cos. Inc., Hy-Vee Inc., Save Mart Supermarkets and US Foods Inc. are represented by Samuel J. Randall and William J. Blechman of Sperling Kenny Nachwalter.

Amory Investments LLC is represented by Derek T. Ho and Collin R. White of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

McDonald's Corp., PJ Food Service Inc., Aramark Food and Support Services Group Inc., Target Corp., Gordon Food Service Inc., Glazier Foods Co., Quality Supply Chain Co-Op Inc., Sherwood Food Distributors LLC, Harvest Meat Co. Inc., Western Boxed Meat Distributors Inc., Hamilton Meat LLC, Jetro Holdings LLC, Maximum Quality Foods Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., Kraft Heinz Foods Co., Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. and Bi-Lo Holdings LLC are represented by Mark A. Singer of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Meat Distributors Inc., Topco Associates LLC, Alex Lee Inc./Merchants Distributors LLC, Associated Food Stores Inc., Brookshire Grocery Co., Colorado Boxed Beef Co., Certco Inc., The Golub Corp., Nicholas & Co., PFD Enterprises Inc., SpartanNash Co., Springfield Grocer Co., Van Eerden Foodservice Co., URM Stores Inc., Giant Eagle Inc. and UniPro Foodservice Inc. are represented by Brian C. Hill of Marcus & Shapira LLP.

Triumph is represented by Aaron Chapin, Christopher A. Smith, Jason Husgen, Sarah L. Zimmerman, Kate Ledden, Tanner Cook and A. James Spung of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The case is In re: Pork Antitrust Litigation, case number 0:18-cv-01776, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.