The California Court of Appeals upheld a decision finding that a Texas court had personal jurisdiction over California franchisees. GlobalCFO LLC v. Venkataramanappa, 2024 WL 4220439 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024)....more
10/14/2024
/ Business & Professions Code ,
Franchise Agreements ,
Franchisee ,
Franchises ,
Franchisors ,
Motion to Vacate ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Venue
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Court the question of whether franchisee plaintiffs in an ongoing case pass the threshold inquiry under the state’s three-prong employee...more
10/10/2023
/ 7-Eleven ,
Contract Terms ,
Employment Litigation ,
Franchise Agreements ,
Franchisee ,
Franchises ,
Independent Contractors ,
MA Supreme Judicial Court ,
Misclassification ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Wage and Hour
A federal court in Michigan recently denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims alleging that it was liable as a joint employer for claims under Title VII of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan’s state...more
6/13/2023
/ Economic Realities Test ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Franchisee ,
Franchises ,
Franchisors ,
Hostile Environment ,
Joint Employers ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Retaliation ,
Sexual Harassment ,
Title VII
A state appellate court in New York recently held a franchisor was not entitled to unpaid royalty fees because of its own breach of a franchise agreement reinstated by preliminary injunction. Integrity Real Estate Consultants...more
3/9/2023
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Breach of Contract ,
Contract Terms ,
Franchise Agreements ,
Franchisee ,
Franchises ,
Franchisors ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Reversal ,
Royalties
A federal court in Massachusetts has denied a franchisor’s summary judgment motion which sought attorneys’ fees related its defense of previously dismissed claims. Patel v. 7-Eleven, 2023 WL 35357 (D. Mass Jan. 4, 2023)....more
A California appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a customer had not agreed to arbitrate claims against a franchisor when she was presented with a “Terms of Use Agreement” at a franchised location....more