Judge likely to transfer suit brought by ousted Ben & Jerry’s board chair to New York

The judge said the defamation case was related to litigation in the Southern District of New York over Ben & Jerry’s merger and settlement with Unilever.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, told a federal judge Wednesday that a defamation lawsuit brought by the ice cream maker’s former board chair should be transferred to the Southern District of New York to join a related case against Unilever.“There is such overlap between these two cases,” Steve Madison of Quinn Emanuel, representing the defendants, told U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. “The two central issues around the defamation case relate to the audit and the business integrity investigation conducted. Those are squarely at issue in terms of the allegations and evidence in New York. It would be hard to imagine a case more related.”Anuradha Mittal sued Unilever, its ice cream business entity The Magnum Ice Cream Company and Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jochanan Senf in the Northern District of California in March, claiming her public support for Palestinian rights and a cease-fire in Gaza “rankled” the company, accusing the defendants of defamation in an attempt to get her to leave the company’s independent board.She says the defamatory statements include that she engaged in self-dealing, received improper benefits, diverted funds from the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation and was deemed unfit to serve as board chair following internal investigations.In 2024, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever in the Southern District of New York, accusing it of breaching settlement terms that resolved a 2021 lawsuit Ben & Jerry’s brought after the company revealed it had sold Ben & Jerry’s intellectual property in Israel and the occupied West Bank to a local licensee who would continue sales, despite the ice cream maker announcing the year prior that it would stop selling ice cream in the occupied West Bank.Though the terms of the settlement are not public, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever agreed to “[r]espect and acknowledge the Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity” and “work in good faith with the Independent Board to ensure that both are protected and furthered.”“Unilever has breached these contractual obligations,” the ice cream maker said.At Wednesday’s hearing, Paul Vickrey of Vitale Vickrey Niro Solon & Gasey, representing Mittal, argued the case should remain in California because most of the conduct Mittal claims took place there, and there are no witnesses in New York.Ben & Jerry’s filing its 2024 lawsuit in New York didn’t relate to anything Mittal was doing, he said, and only happened due to a clause in the 2000 merger agreement between Unilever and the ice cream maker.“The sole reason the case is in New York is because of a clause in the merger agreement, something plaintiff never signed,” Vickrey said. “The fact that that case is pending, years before my client’s claims even arose, is not a valid basis to transfer the case, presumably to be consolidated with that case.”However, Orrick said he was inclined to grant the transfer motion, stating he did not know how Mittal’s case was not related to the Southern District of New York litigation.The Barack Obama appointee indicated he leaned toward denying the defense’s motion to dismiss for personal jurisdiction and its anti-SLAPP motion to strike, but would leave those issues to a New York judge if he granted the transfer motion.“Maybe the best thing to do is simply not rule on the motion and let it get taken up in New York,” Robert Schwartz of Quinn Emmanuel, representing the defendants, said.“If I am going to transfer the case, that is exactly what I am going to do,” Orrick responded.The judge did not indicate when he would rule.The parties’ representatives did not respond to a request for comment.Since Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield founded the company in 1978, activism has been a key ingredient of Ben & Jerry’s. Unilever acquired the company in 2000, in a deal that created an independent board tasked with overseeing the ice cream maker’s “social mission and brand integrity” and a commitment of at least $5 million in annual funding for the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation.Mittal, the founder and executive director of left-leaning think tank The Oakland Institute, joined the company’s independent board in 2008 and the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 2012. In 2017, she was named vice chair. A year later, she became board chair, which she held until she was removed Dec. 15, 2025.In her complaint, Mittal says tensions with Unilever executives had been simmering over her public support of Palestinians. She says the relationship escalated in 2024, after Unilever announced plans to demerge its ice cream business, including Ben & Jerry’s, to Magnum and go public.Mittal accuses Unilever of using the demerger to oust her by directing an audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation that focused on Mittal and the foundation’s contributions to The Oakland Institute.“Defendants crafted and implemented a plan to smear and discredit Ms. Mittal through sham ‘investigations’ and statements about their findings. Defendants engaged in that strategy to (1) coerce Ms. Mittal into ‘voluntarily’ leaving the board, and if she refused, (2) inform the public that she would be ousted for financial misconduct due to ‘investigations,’” Mittal said in her amended complaint.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads