OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
|
|
- Pierce Snow
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Iris F. Rosario, Assistant Editor DATE: August 7, 2009 No. 122 This section of The GPMemorandum addresses non-judicial developments, trends, and best practices of interest to franchisors. Reports of recent judicial developments begin on page 3. NEW YORK CREATES EXTENSION PROCESS AND CLARIFIES ISSUES RELATING TO NEW FRANCHISOR TAX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS As reported in our last issue of The GPMemorandum, New York recently enacted a new tax law that imposes unprecedented new reporting requirements on franchisors that have at least one franchisee in New York that is required to collect sales tax. To provide further detail as to these reporting requirements, on July 7, 2009, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance issued an informational statement titled, New Requirement for the Filing of Information Returns for Franchisors. This document is available at In reaction to the new law, on July 20, 2009, IFA President Matthew Shay wrote a letter to the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and Finance requesting an extension of at least 90 days for the first and all subsequent reporting deadlines, pointing out the near impossibility for many franchisors of collecting data regarding third-party supplier sales to franchisees and seeking to clarify the use of the term gross sales in the guidelines. Yesterday the IFA reported that it received a response from New York that contains good news for franchisors. According to the IFA, New York is creating an automatic 90-day extension process for all reporting deadlines and will post on its web site instructions for requesting extensions. Franchisors requesting an automatic extension of their first reporting deadline (September 20, 2009), will have it extended to December 20, 2009, and franchisors requesting an automatic extension of any future March 20 deadline will have it extended to 1
2 June 20. In addition, in what should come as a relief to many franchisors, New York has notified the IFA that while franchisors must still report in their returns the amount of sales they or their affiliated companies make to franchisees, New York is dropping the requirement that franchisors report sales designated or approved suppliers make to franchisees. Finally, according to the IFA, New York has clarified that if a franchisor uses a performance measure other than a percentage of gross sales, an explanation of that performance measure, as well as any quantitative data for the relevant reporting period, still must be reported to the state. UPDATE ON RED FLAGS RULE As we previously discussed in Issue No. 115 of The GPMemorandum (January 21, 2009), the new federal Red Flags Rule requires certain businesses to establish written programs to detect, identify, and respond to signs of possible identity theft. The rule is aimed at reducing identity theft by making it more difficult for identity thieves to use stolen identity information to purchase goods or services. Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission was set to begin August 1, 2009, but has now been delayed (again) until November 1, Application of the Red Flags Rule. The Red Flags Rule applies to creditors with covered accounts. Businesses are considered creditors under the rule if they regularly extend credit, for example, by deferring payments owed, by allowing purchases of items on credit, or by arranging or providing financing. Under the rule, however, businesses are required to have a written identity theft program only if they have covered accounts. Covered accounts include accounts with individuals for personal or household purposes or any accounts that have risk of identity theft. The FTC has issued guidance to franchisors to assist in evaluating whether a franchisor is subject to the Red Flags Rule: In some franchise systems, the franchisor may not be subject to the Rule but the franchisees are covered (for example, franchised businesses that provide services on Net 30 payment terms). The FTC recently issued an easy do-it-yourself Identity Theft Prevention Program for use by companies that only have a low risk of identity theft, and this online tool may be useful for franchisees that are covered: Compliance with the Red Flags Rule. If a business has covered accounts, the Rule requires it to develop a written program to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft by noting Red Flags indicating possible theft. The warning signs may include forged or altered photo identifications or documents, invalid Social Security numbers, the use of an account that has been inactive for a long period, or signals of possible identity theft discovered during a credit check, such as fraud alerts, address discrepancies, and 2
3 credit freezes. The Rule is flexible in that the compliance program should be tailored to the nature and risk of the business. RECENT CASES Here are summaries of recent cases of interest to franchisors: SYSTEM STANDARDS/CHANGE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS BURGER KING S RIGHT TO ENFORCE MENU CHANGE AND ITS PROCEDURE FOR DOING SO The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of Burger King Corporation in a case arising out of its termination of multiple franchise agreements based on a franchisee s refusal to implement the Burger King Value Menu. In Burger King Corporation v. E-Z Eating, 41 Corporation, 2009 WL (11th Cir. June 30, 2009), a franchisee with four financially distressed Burger King locations in New York City refused to implement Burger King s required menu or to submit a written application to be excused from the requirement. Instead, in response to a demand for compliance from Burger King s legal department, the franchisee s attorney sent letters to Burger King s in-house counsel stating his belief that his client qualified for an exception and asking the lawyer to call to discuss the matter. Ultimately, Burger King terminated all of the franchise agreements as a result of the franchisee s failure to adopt the Value Menu. In affirming the summary judgment enforcing the termination, the Eleventh Circuit found Burger King squarely within its rights to require its franchisees to implement the Value Menu, stating the Franchise Agreements provided that the franchisee agrees that changes in the standards, specifications and procedures may become necessary and desirable from time to time and agrees to accept and comply with such modifications... There is simply no question that [Burger King] had the power and authority under the Franchise Agreements to impose the Value Menu on its franchisees. The court also found that the letters from the attorney did not meet Burger King s requirements for a request for an exception, noting both that they were addressed to in-house counsel rather than the appropriate division vice president (as required) and that neither letter actually asked for a specific exception... specified which of the three exceptions [the franchisee] sought, or why they qualified under a particular exception. In sum, the decision upheld Burger King s right to enforce implementation of the Value Menu policy and to establish and require strict compliance with internal procedures for 3
4 complying with the policy, such as the requirement that applications for exception be submitted in writing to a particular officer. NON-COMPETE COVENANTS GEORGIA COURT RESTRICTS IN-TERM COVENANTS AGAINST COMPETITION In Atlanta Bread Company Int l, Inc. v. Lupton-Smith, 2009 WL (Ga. June 29, 2009), the Georgia Supreme Court held that in-term and post-term covenants against competition in franchise agreements are subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review, rendering them more difficult to enforce in Georgia. In this case, the franchise agreements between Atlanta Bread Company International, Inc. ( ABCI ) and the franchisee prohibited the franchisee from owning or engaging in any bakery/deli business whose method of operation is similar to that employed by store units within the System. The post-term covenant prohibited the franchisee from engaging in a competing business within 20 miles of any Atlanta Bread Company store for one year. During the term of the franchise agreements, the franchisee opened a PJ s Coffee & Lounge in the same city as four of his ABCI franchises. Soon after, ABCI terminated the franchise agreements, alleging that the operation of PJ s Coffee & Lounge was a breach of the in-term non-compete covenant. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals ruling that the in-term covenant was not enforceable because it was not limited to a specific territory. The high court disagreed with ABCI s argument that the covenant was a loyalty covenant rather than a covenant against competition, stating that [a] plain reading of the clause shows that it prohibits the franchisee from engaging in a certain type of business during the term of the parties agreement and, thus, it is a partial restraint of trade designed to lessen competition. The court held that restrictive covenants in franchise or distributorship agreements are subject to the same level of strict scrutiny applied to restrictive non-competition covenants found in employment agreements. This level of strict scrutiny is to be applied to restrictive covenants in franchise agreements, the court held, regardless of when they are in effect. The court further held that because in-term covenants against competition are subject to strict scrutiny, they cannot be bluepenciled under Georgia law, meaning that the court could not insert a territorial restriction to render the covenant enforceable. In light of this case, franchisors who have franchises governed by Georgia law will need to make sure they carefully set a territory covered by any non-competition covenants. 4
5 TERMINATIONS SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WENDY S The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling by an Ohio federal district court in favor of plaintiff Wendy s International, Inc. on all claims brought against it by a franchisee. Wendy s International, Inc. v. Saverin, 2009 WL (6th Cir. July 9, 2009). The franchisee operated 42 stores in Missouri and Illinois. In 2006, the franchisee began defaulting on its financial obligations, leading Wendy s to terminate three of its franchise agreements. The parties subsequently reinstated the franchises through a reinstatement agreement that required the defendant to cure certain financial defaults. The defendant, however, continued to experience financial difficulties, which led the parties to enter into a forbearance agreement to facilitate the winding down of their relationship. But the defendant defaulted on a payment to Wendy s shortly after the forbearance agreement was signed. Despite notice and the opportunity to cure, the defendant failed to cure its financial defaults. A state court ultimately appointed a receiver for the franchises. Accordingly, Wendy s terminated the franchise agreements. Wendy s filed a complaint for breach of contract in federal court, claiming that the defendant was individually liable under his personal guaranty for obligations incurred under the franchise, reinstatement, and forbearance agreements. The defendant denied liability and brought counterclaims based on Wendy s alleged breach of the forbearance agreement and of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in the forbearance agreement. The defendant s theory was that Wendy s breached a good faith obligation to oppose the appointment of the receiver, which then triggered Wendy s right to terminate the franchise agreements. The district court granted Wendy s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the defendant s counterclaims. In affirming the lower court s summary judgment ruling, the Sixth Circuit found that, pursuant to the forbearance agreement, Wendy s properly terminated the defendant s franchise agreements based on the financial defaults. The court rejected the defendant s counterclaim that Wendy s violated the implied covenant of good faith by taking action that allegedly hastened the appointment of a receiver over the franchises. First, the court held that where a contract contains an integration clause, as did the forbearance agreement, extrinsic evidence could not be used to prove an additional promise in this case, an alleged promise to oppose a receivership that was not included in the express terms of the agreement. Second, the court held that under Ohio law, the implied covenant is only implicated by acts or omissions that could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting and therefore were not explicitly addressed by the contract. The court found that the possible appointment of a receiver 5
6 was of the utmost concern when the forbearance agreement was drafted, so the implied covenant did not apply. Finally, the Sixth Circuit also affirmed summary judgment in favor of Wendy s on its claims under the personal guaranty. The court found that all of the financial obligations under the forbearance agreement were within the scope of the guaranty. It rejected the defendant s claim that he was entitled to a setoff based on the profits Wendy s would earn by refranchising his restaurants or opening company-owned restaurants in his market. The court found this to be based on the speculative assumptions that Wendy would reopen each restaurant and that it would earn more in profits from company-owned locations than it would have earned from the defendant s restaurants if they had continued operating. FRANCHISOR DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO TERMINATE FOR NONPAYMENT A Florida federal court recently granted an injunction to franchisor Dunkin Donuts for the franchisee s failure to pay franchise and advertising fees and to comply with the post-termination provisions of the franchise agreements. The case is Dunkin Donuts Franchised Rest. LLC v. KEV Enter., Inc., 2009 WL (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2009). At issue was whether the franchisor had waived the right to terminate based on nonpayment. The franchisee contended that Dunkin Donuts tolerated late payment and therefore waived the right to terminate it on those grounds. The court disagreed and sided with Dunkin Donuts that the letters exchanged between the parties concerning nonpayment specifically stated that the franchisor was not waiving any of its rights and claims. This was further bolstered by the franchise agreements, which also contained this anti-waiver language. The court held that the parties course of dealing was not sufficient to modify the terms of the franchise agreements and was, in any event, not supported by any consideration. The court held that, under Massachusetts law, which requires a showing of clear, decisive and unequivocal conduct of waiver, the franchisee had failed to meet its burden. Gray Plant Mooty represented Dunkin Donuts in this case. NEW JERSEY FEDERAL COURT HOLDS THAT HOTEL FRANCHISOR PROPERLY TERMINATED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT In Ramada Worldwide, Inc. v. RIP Management Group Corp., 2009 WL (D.N.J. June 25, 2009), Ramada terminated the franchise agreement after the franchisees failed to cure certain quality assurance defaults. The franchisees argued that the termination was wrongful and that Ramada unfairly and inconsistently conducted the quality assurance inspections with the intention of defaulting them in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law. 6
7 On Ramada s motion for summary judgment, the court held that the express terms of the franchise agreement allowed Ramada to make unlimited and unannounced inspections to determine whether the franchisees hotel was in compliance with Ramada s quality requirements. The court also determined that the franchise agreement unequivocally granted Ramada the authority to terminate the agreement if any quality assurance defaults were not cured. Finally, the court found that there was no evidence of bad faith or improper motive on behalf of Ramada. Specifically, there was no evidence that Ramada intentionally assigned failing scores to the inspections in an effort to deprive the franchisees of the benefits of the franchise agreement. Accordingly, the court dismissed the franchisees good faith and fair dealing claim and granted judgment, as a matter of law, in favor of Ramada on its breach of contract claims, including the franchisees failure to pay liquidated damages. FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATIONS COURT REFUSES TO ORDER FRANCHISOR TO PAY FOR NONPARTY FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATION S DISCOVERY COSTS In Sound Security, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2009 WL (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2009), franchisor Sonitrol served nonparty discovery requests on the Sonitrol National Dealers Association ( SNDA ), an association of Sonitrol franchisees. SNDA moved the court for an order shifting the costs of complying with those discovery requests to Sonitrol, arguing that as a nonparty to the litigation, it should not be required to bear the cost of responding. The court denied that motion and ordered SNDA to bear its own costs and attorneys fees. The court found that Sonitrol s discovery requests were reasonable and not excessive, and noted Sonitrol s efforts to reduce the cost of complying with them. The court also found that SNDA had its own interest in the outcome of the litigation as the association for Sonitrol franchisees, and held that a nonparty to litigation cannot shift its discovery costs if it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. SNDA s interest was shown by its willingness to expend tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees in responding to discovery requests directed to the franchisee, not to SNDA itself. This case illustrates the high degree of federal district courts discretionary control over the allocation of discovery costs. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B)(ii), a court order compelling production or inspection must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. Although the court acknowledged that the expenses for which SNDA sought reimbursement, including fees, were significant (more than $86,000), it applied equitable factors and left SNDA to bear those expenses itself, requiring Sonitrol to reimburse only SNDA s copying and mailing costs, as it had volunteered to do. 7
8 ARBITRATION SUPPLIER CANNOT COMPEL ARBITRATION BECAUSE IT WAS A NONSIGNATORY TO THE DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT The Eighth Circuit last month held that a supplier could not compel arbitration of a dealer s cross-claim against it under the arbitration clause of the dealer agreement because the supplier was not a party to that agreement. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court, which had found that arbitration could be compelled. The appellate decision is Donaldson Co., Inc. v. Burroughs Diesel, Inc., No (8th Cir. July 20, 2009). The supplier argued that although it was not a party to the dealer agreement, arbitration was required because the dealer s claim was premised on the existence of the agreement and because the dealer had previously alleged that the supplier acted in concert with the manufacturer, which was able to compel arbitration. The Eighth Circuit held that while in certain instances nonsignatories may be able to compel arbitration pursuant to an underlying agreement, such was not the case here because the supplier could not establish a sufficiently close relationship to the dealer. In addition, the supplier had failed to demonstrate that the cross-claim arose out of or related to the agreement. Finally, the court held that even though the cross-claim did have allegations in common with the claim against the manufacturer, there were no allegations that the two acted in concert or were sufficiently intertwined such that arbitration could be compelled on the claim against the supplier. FRANCHISE SALES/FRAUD DISCLAIMERS IN FRANCHISE DOCUMENTS HELP DEFEAT FRANCHISEE S SALES FRAUD CLAIMS AGAINST COLD STONE In Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Lenora Foods I, LLC, 2009 WL (11th Cir. June 3, 2009), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision dismissing franchisee Lenora s counterclaims against Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. under the Florida Franchise Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court dismissed these claims due, in part, to specific statements in Cold Stone s franchise documents encouraging franchisees to conduct independent investigations before purchasing a franchise and notifying franchisees of the risks in purchasing a franchise. In its first counterclaim, Lenora alleged that Cold Stone violated the Florida Franchise Act by misrepresenting Lenora s ability to succeed if it purchased a Cold Stone franchise. The district court granted Cold Stone s summary judgment motion on the 8
9 counterclaim, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Lenora failed to provide the court with evidence that it relied on any misrepresentation. In particular, the court noted that Cold Stone provided Lenora with a detailed disclaimer about the risks of purchasing a franchise and encouraged it to conduct its own independent investigation. Further, the court found that the parties franchise agreement did not guarantee Lenora s success. Finally, the record demonstrated that Lenora had conducted an independent investigation and understood the franchise agreement it signed. In its second counterclaim, Lenora alleged that Cold Stone violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In particular, Lenora alleged that before the sale of the franchise, two franchisees who appeared to be acting as agents of Cold Stone made statements to Lenora about the chances of success if it purchased a franchise. The district court granted Cold Stone s summary judgment motion, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Lenora failed to prove that the alleged actions were likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances. The court noted that the franchise agreement stated that franchisees cannot make financial representations on Cold Stone s behalf. In addition, Cold Stone provided Lenora with a financial performance representation that contained specific disclaimers notifying prospective franchisees that they may not achieve the same results. As a result, the court concluded that no reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the two franchisees statements. PENNSYLVANIA COURT ALLOWS SOME CLAIMS TO PROCEED AGAINST QUIZNO S After three years of difficult litigation across the country, a United States Magistrate Judge in Pennsylvania once again has dissected Quiznos ongoing franchise battle in Martrano v. Quiznos Franchise Co., 2009 WL (W.D. Pa. June 15, 2009). In analyzing Quiznos motion to dismiss, the Pennsylvania court issued a decision with heavy citation to a Wisconsin court s treatment of a similar Quiznos motion to dismiss in Westerfield v. Quizno s Franchise Co., LLC (see Issue 101 of The GPMemorandum). The Pennsylvania court then dismissed only the franchisees claims of criminal theft (finding no private cause of action), and antitrust violations under the Sherman Act (finding franchisee s Quick Service Toasted Sandwich Restaurant Franchise a bit too narrow to constitute the relevant market). The court found the rest of the franchisees claims, which included several RICO claims, fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, to be much too factually disputed to be dismissed as a matter of law. Similar cases are pending in Wisconsin and Colorado. 9
10 Minneapolis, MN Office John W. Fitzgerald, cochair ( ) Megan L. Anderson ( ) Wade T. Anderson ( ) Phillip W. Bohl ( ) Jennifer C. Debrow ( ) Elizabeth S. Dillon ( ) Collin B. Foulds ( ) Michael R. Gray ( ) Laura J. Hein ( ) Kelly W. Hoversten ( ) Franklin C. Jesse, Jr. ( ) Cheryl L. Johnson ( ) Jeremy L. Johnson ( ) Gaylen L. Knack ( ) Kirk W. Reilly, cochair ( ) Kate G. Nilan ( ) Craig P. Miller ( ) Bruce W. Mooty ( ) John W. Mooty ( ) Kevin J. Moran ( ) Max J. Schott II ( ) Daniel R. Shulman ( ) Jason J. Stover ( ) Michael P. Sullivan, Sr. ( ) Michael P. Sullivan, Jr. ( ) Henry Wang ( ) Lori L. Wiese-Parks ( ) Quentin R. Wittrock ( ) Washington, DC Office Robert Zisk, cochair ( ) Arthur I. Cantor ( ) Jimmy Chatsuthiphan ( ) Ashley M. Ewald ( ) Jeffrey L. Karlin ( ) Peter J. Klarfeld ( ) Iris F. Rosario ( ) Stephen J. Vaughan ( ) Katherine L. Wallman ( ) David E. Worthen ( ) Eric L. Yaffe ( ) Carl Zwisler ( ) Wrote or edited articles for this issue. For more information on our Franchise and Distribution practice and for recent back issues of this publication, visit the Franchise and Distribution practice group at GRAY PLANT MOOTY 500 IDS Center Suite 1111 The Watergate 80 South Eighth Street 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Minneapolis, MN Washington, DC Phone: Phone: Fax: Fax: The GPMemorandum is a periodic publication of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own franchise lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have. 10
OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum DATE: March 26, 2008 No. 105 Here
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum. Iris F. Rosario, Assistant Editor. October 9, 2009-No.
GRAY PLANT MOOTY The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY'S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Iris F. Rosario,
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa Jean Frank,
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY'S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
PLANT MOOTY The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY'S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum DATE: January 28, 2008 No. 103
More informationGRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum. Jason J. Stover, Assistant Editor
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Jason J. Stover,
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Iris F. Rosario, Assistant Editor
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY'S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY 'S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa Jean Frank, Editor
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Iris F. Rosario, Assistant Editor
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum DATE: September 26, 2008 No. 111
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Iris F. Rosario, Assistant Editor
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa Jean Frank,
More informationOUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP. Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum
The GPMemorandum TO: OUR FRANCHISE CLIENTS AND FRIENDS FROM: GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum DATE: December 14, 2007 Tenth Anniversary
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa Jean Frank,
More informationOUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP
The GPMemorandum TO: FROM: OUR FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION CLIENTS AND FRIENDS GRAY PLANT MOOTY S FRANCHISE AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICE GROUP Quentin R. Wittrock, Editor of The GPMemorandum Maisa Jean Frank,
More informationDunkin Donuts Inc v. Liu
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-6-2003 Dunkin Donuts Inc v. Liu Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2972 Follow this
More informationCase 1:10-cv JLT Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:10-cv-10098-JLT Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC, ) a Delaware Limited Liability Company, )
More informationCase 1:09-cv KMM Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2010 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:09-cv-23435-KMM Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2010 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-23435-Civ-Moore/Simonton NATIONAL FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATION,
More informationCase 2:12-cv KHV-DJW Document 20 Filed 09/17/13 Page 1 of 25
Case 2:12-cv-02775-KHV-DJW Document 20 Filed 09/17/13 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS AT KANSAS CITY, KANSAS LENEXA HOTEL, LP, vs. Plaintiff and Counterclaim
More informationKCC Class Action Digest March 2019
KCC Class Action Digest March 2019 Class Action Services KCC Class Action Services partners with counsel to deliver high-quality, cost-effective notice and settlement administration services. Recognized
More informationCase BLS Doc 134 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 18-11092-BLS Doc 134 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc., et al., 1 ) Case No. 18-11092
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More information8 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING Wei PROVISIONS 9 LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, 10 INC. ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE 11 I. PARTIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 7 8 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING Wei PROVISIONS 9 LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, 10 INC. ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE 11 12 13 The State of Washington
More informationIMPORTANT DISCLOSURES
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES Congratulations on taking the first step to becoming an InCruises Partner! As a Partner you will be able to participate actively in the growth of our business and you will be rewarded
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! DRAFTING DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSES
More informationArbitration of Distribution and Franchise Disputes
Arbitration of Distribution and Franchise Disputes Gerald Saltarelli Abstract: Manufacturers and other sellers of goods and services reach their markets through a variety of means, including distributor
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Debtor. Case No Chapter 7
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Richard Michael Wilcox, Debtor. Case No. 02-66238 Chapter 7 / Michigan Web Press, Inc., v. Richard Michael Wilcox, Plaintiff,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellant,
More informationGood Faith and Fair Dealing Alive and Well or is it a Matter of Business Judgment?
Good Faith and Fair Dealing Alive and Well or is it a Matter of Business Judgment? Erica L. Calderas, Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, Cleveland, OH Jason M. Murray, Murray Law, P.A., Miami, FL Ongoing, long-term
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:10-cv-01025-RHK-LIB Document 7 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA John Ellering; Karen Ellering; Select Associates Realty, LLC; EJK, Inc., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationEnforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Enforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless
More informationBUDGET BLINDS, LLC'S ASSURANCE 9 POACHING PROVISIONS OF DISCONTINUANCE
1 2 3 4 5 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ~- ' ~ 8 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO ASSURANCE 9 POACHING PROVISIONS OF DISCONTINUANCE 10 The State of Washington (State), by and through its attorneys,
More informationNOTE- All drafts must be pre-approved by Vectren before final execution. Please contact Vectren Credit Risk for assignment of document number.
NOTE- All drafts must be pre-approved by Vectren before final execution. Please contact Vectren Credit Risk for assignment of document number. GUARANTY AGREEMENT GTYSCO##-### THIS GUARANTY AGREEMENT GTYSCO##-###
More informationCHOICE OF LAW ISSUES IN FRANCHISE AND DEALERSHIP AGREEMENTS 1. Gary W. Leydig
GARY W. LEYDIG ADVOCATE COUNSELOR TRIAL LAWYER CHOICE OF LAW ISSUES IN FRANCHISE AND DEALERSHIP AGREEMENTS 1 Gary W. Leydig The enforceability of choice of law provisions in franchise and dealer agreements
More informationCLASS ACTIONS IN FRANCHISING CASES. Carmen D. Caruso 1
CLASS ACTIONS IN FRANCHISING CASES By Carmen D. Caruso 1 (Note: An expanded version of this article was presented to the American Franchisee Association at its annual legal symposium in April 1999). It
More informationWILLIAM E. CORUM. Kansas City, MO office:
WILLIAM E. CORUM Partner Kansas City, MO office: 816.983.8139 email: william.corum@ Overview As a trial lawyer, Bill is sought out by national and global companies for his litigation strategy and direction.
More informationCase 1:08-cv Document 44 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-03009 Document 44 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KENNETH THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 08 C 3009 ) AMERICAN
More informationCase 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
Case 2:16-cv-05042-JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANLOGIC SCOUT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., v. Petitioners, CIVIL
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010 DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISED RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Appellant, GROSS, C.J. v. 330545 DONUTS, INC., a Florida
More informationQUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE. Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018
1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS: QUICKPOLE.CA TERMS OF SERVICE Last Modified On: July 12 th, 2018 1.1 Introduction. Welcome to our website's Terms and Conditions ("Agreement"). The provisions of this Agreement
More informationINDEPENDENT SALES CONSULTANT APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
INDEPENDENT SALES CONSULTANT APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. I understand that as a Rebellious Rose Wax Co Consultant: a. I have the right to offer for sale Rebellious Rose Wax Co products
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More informationAugust 30, A. Introduction
August 30, 2013 The New Jersey Supreme Court Limits The Use Of Equitable Estoppel As A Basis To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Against A Person That Is Not A Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement A. Introduction
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D07-907
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008 KC LEISURE, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D07-907 LAWRENCE HABER, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed January 25,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1786 In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------ Millennium Operations, Inc.; JFM Market, Inc.; MJF
More informationOregon enacts statute to make improper patent license demands a violation of its unlawful trade practices law
ebook Patent Troll Watch Written by Philip C. Swain March 14, 2016 States Are Pushing Patent Trolls Away from the Legal Line Washington passes a Patent Troll Prevention Act In December, 2015, the Washington
More informationSTATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. General (the Attorney General ), and Eric S. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, files this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 8 9 10 11 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING PROVISIONS NO. DISCONTINUANCE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The State of Washington, by
More informationSTATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. General (the Attorney General ), and Eric S. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, files this
1 2 3 4 5 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 7 8 9 10 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING PROVISIONS NO. DISCONTINUANCE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The State of Washington, by and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 2:14-cv CBM-E
MICHAEL J. ANGLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION v. UTI WORLDWIDE INC., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants.
More informationROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ROUNDUP FAIR ELECTIONS, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv (WMW/SER)
CASE 0:18-cv-02420-ECT-SER Document 24 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil Case No.: 18-cv-02420 (WMW/SER) FRIDAY & COX, LLC, Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' JOINT
More informationCase 1:16-cv WGY Document 56 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:16-cv-10963-WGY Document 56 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION Association of Independent BR Franchise Owners, Plaintiff,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CMA DESIGN & BUILD, INC., d/b/a CMA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2009 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 287789 Macomb Circuit Court WOOD COUNTY AIRPORT
More informationYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey NOTICE If you rented a vehicle from Hertz in the United States at any time between July 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010, and during that vehicle rental
More informationDeed of Company Arrangement
Deed of Company Arrangement Matthew James Donnelly Deed Administrator David Mark Hodgson Deed Administrator Riverline Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 112 906 144 (Administrators Appointed) trading as Matera Construction
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:08-cv-00246-GCS-MRA Doc #: 71 Filed: 10/09/12 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 2404 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Robert Burda, et al., -v- Plaintiffs, Case No.:
More informationTHE NEWSLETTER OF THE DISTRIBUTION AND
DISTRIBUTION THE NEWSLETTER OF THE DISTRIBUTION AND FRANCHISING COMMITTEE Antitrust Section American Bar Association Vol. 13, No. 3 IN THIS ISSUE Message from the Chair...1 The Sixth Circuit's Necessary
More informationTexas Fiduciary Litigation Update. David F. Johnson
Texas Fiduciary Litigation Update David F. Johnson DISCLAIMERS These materials should not be considered as, or as a substitute for, legal advice, and they are not intended to nor do they create an attorney-client
More informationBasic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions
Basic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions Page 1 of 16 Basic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions This guide is provided by the Wisconsin court system to give you general information about Wisconsin
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-0-rsl Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 MONEY MAILER, LLC, v. WADE G. BREWER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Defendant. WADE G. BREWER, v. Counterclaim
More informationCase 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs,
Case 2:06-cv-01238-JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X JEFFREY SCHAUB and HOWARD SCHAUB, as
More informationExecutive Summary, July 2015
Fourth Circuit Affirms $237 Million Judgment Against Tuomey, Finding No Error in Jury s Conclusion That Physician Compensation Varied with Volume or Value of Referrals Executive Summary, July 2015 Sponsored
More informationARTIST MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
ARTIST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the. BY AND BETWEEN: JENNIFER ELIZABETH SCHRODER (herein referred to as the "Artist") [Address] [Address] - and - TRACY WESLOSKY
More informationOhio Appellate Court Holds that Statutorily Authorized Awards of Attorney's Fees are Properly Decided by Arbitrators
Arbitration Law Review Volume 3 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 21 7-1-2011 Ohio Appellate Court Holds that Statutorily Authorized Awards of Attorney's Fees are Properly Decided by Arbitrators
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationCase Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18
Case 18-30197 Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 LOCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et
More informationNOTICE OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT
NOTICE OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. CASE NAME AND DOCKET NUMBER: CHELSEA KOENIG V.
More informationEthical Considerations in Class Action Settlements What In-House Counsel Need to Know
Ethical Considerations in Class Action Settlements What In-House Counsel Need to Know Pre-Certification Communications and Settlements with Absent Class Members Danyll W. Foix BakerHostetler December 2014
More informationmew Doc 19 Filed 05/18/18 Entered 05/18/18 17:11:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 16
Pg 1 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- In re WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Debtor. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------
More informationInstructions on filing a claim:
Cricket Wireless Consumer Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER-RELATED DISPUTES Instructions on filing
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RADAR SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, RASHID HOLDINGS LLC, CHARLES E RASHID, GEORGE E RASHID JR, and STEVE A SAFIE, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2012 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-
More informationSTATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNT' SUPERIOR COURT r? NO. 5 5Z - 4 5LA. 1. t3 t 2- r b I i tala' 5. L_ L-C- QUIZ HOLDINGS, LLC ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNT' SUPERIOR COURT r? IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING PROVISIONS NO. 5 5Z - 4 5LA 1. t3 t 2- r b I i tala'
More informationSEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA Tribal Court Small Claims Rules of Procedure Table of Contents RULE 7.010. TITLE AND SCOPE... 3 RULE 7.020. APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE... 3 RULE 7.040. CLERICAL
More informationRESPONSE OF CREDITOR SERRA CHEVROLET, INC. TO DEBTORS THIRTY-NINTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS (DEALERSHIP CLAIMS)
Max A. Moseley, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 420 20 th Street North 1600 Wachovia Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-3817 Facsimile: (205) 488-3817 mmoseley@bakerdonelson.com
More informationNOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: 2008 FANNIE MAE ERISA 09-CV-01350-PAC LITIGATION MDL No. 2013 NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MIGHT BE AFFECTED IF
More information[CLIENT] CHAPTER AFFILIATION AGREEMENT
SLS SAMPLE DOCUMENT 06/30/17 [CLIENT] CHAPTER AFFILIATION AGREEMENT This CHAPTER AFFILIATION AGREEMENT ( Agreement ) is entered into as of, 20 ( Effective Date ), between [ ], a [ ] non-profit corporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG. v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-33 (BAILEY)
Miller v. Mariner Finance, LLC et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG KIMBERLY MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-33 (BAILEY)
More informationThird Circuit Bankruptcy Case Summaries
Third Circuit Bankruptcy Case Summaries 7.23.10 Recent Third Circuit decision In re Garden Ridge Corp., 2010 WL 272145 (3d Cir. July 9, 2010) (Not Precedential) On July 9, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed
More informationCase 1:18-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1
Case 1:18-cv-10927-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1 FOLKMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. By: Benjamin Folkman, Esquire Paul C. Jensen, Jr., Esquire 1949 Berlin Road, Suite 100 Cherry Hill,
More informationNOTICE OF PENDING CLASS, COLLECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT
This notice is being sent pursuant to court order. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. NOTICE OF PENDING CLASS, COLLECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Rainoldo Gooding, et al v. Vita-Mix
More informationTEMPORARY INJUNCTION. upon the Plaintiff, Restoration 1 Franchise Holding, LLC s Motion for Temporary Injunction
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RESTORATION 1 FRANCHISE HOLDING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, CASE NO.:
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2009 Lower Tribunal No. 13-16523 Starboard Cruise
More informationDEALER/AGENT/RESELLER/LIEN HOLDER SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT
DEALER/AGENT/RESELLER/LIEN HOLDER SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT This DEALER/AGENT/RESELLER/LIEN HOLDER AGREEMENT (the Agreement ), effective as of the day of, 20, by and between Crossbow Group Inc. (CGI )
More informationTARIFF SCHEDULES for Natural Gas Storage Service of WILD GOOSE STORAGE, LLC West Liberty Road Gridley, California 95948
2780 West Liberty Road First Revised Cal. P.U.C. Title Sheet Gridley, CA 95948 cancelling Original Cal. P.U.C. Title Sheet TARIFF SCHEDULES for Natural Gas Storage Service of WILD GOOSE STORAGE, LLC 2780
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BARTOSZ GRABOWSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 17 C 5069 ) DUNKIN BRANDS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationCase 1:05-cv RHB Document 50 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00384-RHB Document 50 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION QUIKTRAK, INC., v. Plaintiff, DELBERT HOFFMAN, et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-00949 Document 121 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION G.M. SIGN, INC., Plaintiff, vs. 06 C 949 FRANKLIN BANK, S.S.B.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION EBRAHIM SHANEHCHIAN, et al., Plaintiff, v. MACY S, INC. et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:07-cv-00828-SAS-SKB Judge S. Arthur Spiegel
More informationFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-03074-TWT Document 47 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SPENCER ABRAMS Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 8, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D13-2122 & 13-490 Lower Tribunal No. 08-11213 Arthur
More informationAfter Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue
MEALEY S TM International Arbitration Report After Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue by Gregory A. Litt Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP New York Tina Praprotnik Duke Law
More information8 No. IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING 9 PROVISIONS WINGSTOP RESTAURANTS INC. ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON 7 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 8 No. IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING 9 PROVISIONS DISCONTINUANCE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The State of Washington,
More information2015 Data Breach Litigation Report
2015 Data Breach Litigation Report A comprehensive analysis of class action lawsuits involving data security breaches filed in United States District Courts By David Zetoony,* Josh James,** Leila Knox,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No PAUL GREEN SCHOOL OF ROCK MUSIC FRANCHISING, LLC. JIM R. SMITH, Appellant.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-2718 PAUL GREEN SCHOOL OF ROCK MUSIC FRANCHISING, LLC. v. JIM R. SMITH, Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationBishop v. GNC Franchising LLC
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-23-2007 Bishop v. GNC Franchising LLC Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2302 Follow
More informationNational Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS
National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Important Notice...3 Introduction...3 Standard Clause...3 Submission Agreement...3 Administrative
More informationADR LITIGATION OPINION 43 TO AFFECT OUT OF STATE ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO APPEAR IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE PROCEEDINGS (ADR) IN NEW JERSEY
ADR LITIGATION April 2007 Attorney Advertising IN THIS ISSUE Opinion 43 To Affect Out of State Attorneys Seeking to Appear in Alternative Dispute Proceedings (ADR) in New Jersey David G. Tomeo, Esq. The
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-05448-EDL Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : RICKY R. FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL
More informationWoods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Woods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) 29229 Canwood
More information