Harvey Siegel and Elaine Siegel, Husband and Wife v. Chicken Delight, Inc., Chicken Delight, Inc., Appellants-Petitioners v. George B. Harris, District Judge, Harvey and Elaine Siegel, Real Parties in Interest

448 F.2d 43 Harvey SIEGEL and Elaine Siegel, husband and wife, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHICKEN DELIGHT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. CHICKEN DELIGHT, INC., et al., Appellants-Petitioners, v. George B. HARRIS, District Judge, Respondent, Harvey and Elaine SIEGEL et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. 25908. No. 26860. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. September 9, 1971. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED M. Laurence Popfsky (argued), Richard L. Goff, Stephen V. Bomse, of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Michael N. Khourie (argued), of Broad, Busterud & Khourie, San Francisco, Cal., Royce H. Schulz, New York City, Cherrin & Cherrin, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees. Before MADDEN, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, and MERRILL and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 This antitrust suit is a class action in which certain franchisees of Chicken Delight seek treble damages for injuries allegedly resulting from illegal restraints imposed by Chicken Delight's standard form franchise agreements. The restraints in question are Chicken Delight's…