Legal Opinion
Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. v. Perche No! Gelato, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided May 21, 1986No. C-85-5819-CAL, C-85-6553-CAL and C-86-0853-CALPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER RE DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL
LEGGE, District Judge.
I
This is a motion by the Pillsbury Company, Inc., (“Pillsbury”), the parent company of Haagen-Dazs Company, Inc. (“Haagen-Dazs”), for the disqualification of counsel for Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Cream, Inc. (“Double Rainbow”) in this antitrust litigation.
Double Rainbow is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of super premium ice cream. Pillsbury, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Min nesota, entered the super premium ice cream market when it purchased…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Michael F. Armstrong v. Clovis McAlpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Analytica, Incorporated v. Npd Research, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Appeals of Schwartz & Freeman and Pressman and Hartunian ChtdCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Lasalle National Bank and Lake Properties Venture v. County of Lake and the Village of GrayslakeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Trone v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Maldonado v. New JerseyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- Atasi Corporation v. Seagate TechnologyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Richards v. JainDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2001
- Oxford Systems, Inc. v. CellPro, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1999
- Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.