From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litigation
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
506 F.Supp. 651 (1981)
Archer, Blum, Cohn, and Eisenberger (plaintiffs) sued Cuisinarts, Inc., Carl G. Sontheimer, Shirley M. Sontheimer, and Federated Department Stores, Inc. (defendants) for antitrust violations on behalf of purchasers of Cuisinart food processors between January 1, 1973 and December 31, 1981 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The state attorneys general of Massachusetts and New Jersey also filed parens patriae actions related to the same violations. The defendants are accused of colluding to fix and raise prices on Cuisinart food processors, which they deny. The plaintiffs requested certification of a class. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs who bought food processors before September 17, 1976. Those motions had not been ruled on when the parties entered settlement negotiations. This notice sets forth the terms of the settlement proposal. All members of the class will receive one transferable coupon for 50 percent off a Cuisinart product. The coupon may not be used on purchases for resale. The defendants placed $775,000 into escrow accounts for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the actions. Class members must release all claims and are enjoined from pursuing further action against the defendants in the matter. Class members may opt out of the class by filing written notice to the Clerk of the Court; those members will then be free to participate in other ongoing actions or pursue their own claims. The settlement, if approved by the court, will be binding on all class members who do not opt out in writing. Class members may appear in person or by attorney and present objections at the settlement hearing. Any objections not presented in the manner described in the settlement proposal will be waived. Instructions and forms for filing a claim are attached to the proposal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.