Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 02 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23959.,23959. |
| Citation | 412 F.2d 830 |
| Parties | CHICKEN DELIGHT, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. George B. HARRIS, District Judge, Respondent. Harvey S. Siegel et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
M. Laurence Popofsky, Richard L. Goff, Stephen V. Bomse, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners; Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel.
Broad, Busterud & Khourie, San Francisco, Cal., for Siegel, and others.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., for respondent.
Before BARNES, ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
In a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Petitioners challenge a portion of an Order issued by the District Court on March 5, 1969.
The Real Parties in Interest, Plaintiffs below, are five of some six-hundred fifty franchisees of the Petitioners who seek treble damages for Petitioners' alleged unlawful monopolistic practices. They successfully advanced their contention that their suit was properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P. Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 722 (N.D.Cal.1967). Discovery proceedings followed, after which a dispute arose concerning the issues which might properly be set forth by the Real Parties in Interest in their contemplated notices to all members of the class. District Judge Harris, the Respondent here, resolved the controversy by the issuance of the Order in question. The Order authorized the Real Parties in Interest to include, in their class notices, two alleged issues. The first of these, which the parties call "the requirements issue," is relative to certain provisions in Petitioners' standard forms of franchise agreements, and the Petitioners do not here question the propriety of communication by the Real Parties in Interest of the existence of that issue in the suit. The second issue is the so-called "pricing issue," and this relates to the allegation by the Real Parties in Interest that the Petitioners have unlawfully exercised control over the retail prices of all members of the class. It is the inclusion of that issue which the petition for mandamus attacks.
After considering the Petition, our Court issued an Order calling for answers pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21(b), Fed.R.App.P. and reserving decision as to whether oral argument should be heard. The Real Parties in Interest filed their Answer, and the Petitioners filed their Reply within the time periods fixed by this Court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution MDL No. 31
...have arisen in that respect. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 479 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1973). Compare, e. g., Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Harris, 412 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1969) with Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 722 (N.D.Cal.1967). Of particular concern might have been the putativ......
-
Gold Strike Stamp Company v. Christensen
...F.2d 786 (7th Cir. 1951); Quaker Oats Co., 1963-65, Transfer Binder, CCH Trade Reg. Reporter ¶ 17,134 (FTC 1964); Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Harris, 412 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1969); and Moscarelli v. Stamm, 288 F.Supp. 453 If petitioner's contentions are true as to what must be shown to establis......
-
Roberts v. Heim
...conflicts. See Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 722 (N.D.Cal.1967), rev'd on other grounds sub nom, Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Harris, 412 F.2d 830 (9th Cir.1969); Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1978); Hudson v. Capital Management International, I......
-
Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, In re
...equally convincing evidence, individual issues will predominate and render class treatment inappropriate. See Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Harris, 412 F.2d 830, 831 (9th Cir. 1969). Because plaintiffs have failed to suggest any acceptable method of demonstrating on a class basis that the indivi......