Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Perche No! Gelato, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
639 F. Supp. 282 (1986)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Cream, Inc. (Double Rainbow) (plaintiff) filed an antitrust suit against Haagen-Dazs Company, Inc. (Haagen-Dazs) (defendant), a subsidiary of the Pillsbury Company, Inc. (Pillsbury). The lawsuit related to Haagen-Dazs’s distribution policies. Attorney Franklin C. Jesse worked for the law firm representing Double Rainbow. Previously, Jesse had worked as in-house council for Pillsbury for 10 years. During that time, Jesse had worked on a number of projects related to Haagen-Dazs, including work involving Haagen-Dazs’s distribution policies. Additionally, Jesse had worked at Pillsbury during the time Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc. (Ben & Jerry’s) filed a lawsuit against Haagen-Dazs involving the same or similar issues to the ones raised by Double Rainbow, although Jesse stated he did not work on the Ben & Jerry’s matter. Haagen-Dazs filed a motion to disqualify Jesse from representing Double Rainbow due to his prior employment with Pillsbury.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Legge, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.