Latest Posts › Franchisors

Share:

Franchisee 101: Court Taxes Franchisor’s Restrictive Covenants

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s order denying a franchisor’s request for preliminary injunction against a terminated franchisee to enforce covenants not to compete or solicit former clients....more

Franchisor 101: Pizza Franchisor’s Release Overcooked

A federal district court denied a pizza franchisor’s motion to dismiss a former franchisee’s complaint, finding the former franchisee sufficiently pleaded the franchisor coerced the franchisee into signing a general release....more

Franchisor 101: Court Hits Brakes on Former Franchisees

An Ohio appellate court upheld the state trial court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction against two former franchisees of an auto body shop franchise working for a competitor in violation of the franchise agreement’s...more

Franchisee 101: Default! Default!

A federal district court in Michigan granted franchisor Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (LCEI) a default judgment against its former franchisee for violating the terms of the franchise agreement....more

Franchisor 101: Promises to Prospectives

A federal district court in New Jersey denied Travelodge Hotels’ motion for partial summary judgment against a former franchisee, holding there are genuine issues of fact as to Travelodge’s breach of contract claims....more

Franchisor 101: Greener Grass in a Foreign Forum

A federal court in Maryland denied Marriott International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action based on forum non convenient. Plaintiffs sued Marriott and the JW Marriott hotel franchisee in India for premises...more

Franchisor 101: A Tasty Appeal

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s summary judgement order, granting a chocolate shop franchisor’s breach of contract and unfair competition claims. The appellate court concluded there were...more

Franchisee 101: Transaction Totaled

Franchisee Cipercen, LLC operated several Meineke Car Care Centers. By 2017, Cipercen owed $550,000 in unpaid franchise fees to Meineke and decided to sell the franchises. Cipercen believed Meineke offered to waive the unpaid...more

Franchisor 101: Poked in the Eye

A poke restaurant franchisee in Ohio sued the franchisor for violation of the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL) and other claims. The franchisor defendants moved to dismiss the claims. A California federal court...more

Franchisee 101: Forum Selection Clause is Just what the Doctor Ordered

A federal appellate court held that a forum selection clause requiring litigation to be in the jurisdiction where the franchisor’s principal place of business was located when the action was brought is enforceable. A...more

Franchisor 101: No Repairing Delayed Filing

A New Jersey federal court denied a franchisor’s motion for preliminary injunction against a franchisee due to franchisor’s 11 month delay in bringing the motion. Franchisee entered into two franchise agreements with H-1 Auto...more

Franchisee 101: Caught Between a Rock and Renewal

A federal court denied a franchisee’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a dispute over renewal of a franchise agreement to provide home care services with HCAF....more

Franchisor 101: Transfer DQ’d

A federal court in Wisconsin ruled that Dairy Queen did not breach a 1952 franchise agreement with a franchisee by requiring a prospective buyer of the franchise to sign an updated franchise agreement. Dairy Queen and a...more

Franchisee 101: Subject Matter Mania…

A federal court in Florida dismissed an action by franchisees against their franchisor for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The franchisees asserted claims under California and Florida laws alleging the franchisor, OR...more

Franchisor 101: All the King’s Poachers

A federal appellate court held that Burger King and its franchisees may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act (antitrust) by engaging in concerted action when entering into “no-hire” agreements. The appellate court reversed...more

Franchisee 101: Meet the New Boss

A Tim Hortons franchisee sued the franchisor for breach of six franchise agreements and an area development agreement. Tim Hortons counterclaimed for breach of contract based on failure by the franchisee to meet the...more

Franchisor 101: Trashing the Competition

A trash collection business brought claims against a franchisor and franchisee of Smash My Trash, a mobile waste compacting brand. The business, Republic Services of Kansas City, claimed the defendants wrongfully solicited...more

Franchisee 101: Don’t Mess With Forum Selection Clauses

A federal district court in California granted a franchisor’s motion to transfer venue of claims brought by non-California franchisees to Texas. The ruling was based on a forum selection clause in the franchise agreements....more

Franchisor 101: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

A federal district court in Nevada partly denied a franchisor’s summary judgment motion on claims brought by a franchisee. IJL Midwest entered into several franchise agreements with a franchisor of a dating and...more

Franchisee 101: The Small Business on Main Street

A federal district court denied a motion for preliminary injunction brought by pizza franchisor, Breadeaux’s Pisa, LLC, seeking to stop a former franchisee from operating a competing pizza business. The franchise agreement...more

Franchisor 101: Call Option Claim Bends

A Delaware court found a yoga studio franchisee was entitled to an order requiring the franchisor to buy all of the franchisee’s yoga studios in six states. The court held the franchisor breached its contractual obligation...more

Franchisee 101: Docked Injunction

After obtaining a temporary restraining order, Freedom Franchise Systems (“Freedom”), the franchisor of a boat-club business, was denied a preliminary injunction to stop a former franchisee prospect from using claimed trade...more

Franchisor 101: ADA Claim Is (Not) Under Control

A deaf customer brought an Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) suit against Yum! Brands, Inc. (“Yum!”), parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and The Habit brands, and a franchisee. The lawsuit claimed failure to...more

Franchisor 101: Preemption Preempted

Patel v. 7-Eleven, a case in Massachusetts, has been closely watched since the ABC test took hold of franchise relationships in employee misclassification cases across the country. A putative class of 7-Eleven franchisees...more

Franchisee 101: Franchisor’s Tough Mountain to Climb for TRO

A California federal court denied Mountain Mike’s Pizza a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against one of its franchisees who did not renew its franchise agreement and opened a new restaurant under a different name. In...more

144 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide