The Goldstein Law Firm is pleased to announce that founding attorney Jeffrey M. Goldstein has been named to Lawyers of Distinction’s “2020 Power Lawyers”. This is Mr. Goldstein’s second year in a row being selected for inclusion on this prestigious list, whose members are selected based upon a patented review and vetting process performed by Lawyers of Distinction’s Selection Committee. Lawyers of Distinction announced the “2020 Power Lawyers” in the September 6 edition of The New York Times. Mr. Goldstein is One of Only 55 Lawyers Nationwide Recognized with This Award Mr. Goldstein is one of only 55 lawyers nationwide selected for inclusion in the “2020 Power Lawyers”. More importantly, he is the only lawyer chosen for inclusion in the practice area of Antitrust & Franchise Litigation. In the vast majority of other practice areas, multiple lawyers were selected for inclusion. According to Lawyers of Distinction: “Lawyers of Distinction Members have been selected based upon a review and vetting process by our Selection Committee utilizing U.S. Provisional Patent # 62/743,254. The platform generates a numerical score of 1 to 5 for each of the 12 enumerated factors which are meant to recognize the applicant’s achievements and peer recognition. . . . Members are then subject to a final review for ethical violations within the past ten years before confirmation of Membership. A Lawyers of Distinction Nomination does not guarantee membership and attorneys may not pay a fee to be nominated.” The ”2020 Power Lawyers” were chosen according to an even […]

Read More

LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ANTITRUST AND FRANCHISE LITIGATION Even when you have a very strong case against a business opponent, you will face difficulty in achieving a satisfactory resolution without an effective and efficient litigation strategy. Your job is to find an expert litigator who can provide you with an accurate assessment of your case. As noted elsewhere on this website, not all lawyers are created equal. Not every lawyer is an expert, and not every lawyer approaches the practice of law from an intellectual perspective. Further, not every lawyer is a litigator; and, not every litigator focuses his or her practice in complex litigation in federal courts around the country. Moreover, not every case is amenable to the same type of strategy. A successful litigation strategy must be predictive, reactive and malleable in the face of constantly changing facts, conditions and events. Legal tactics that are used to further mediocre strategies are not likely to be effective. Tactics that masquerade as strategy are doomed from the start. Most important, superior legal strategies will be capable of causing changes to the future litigation battlefield terrain. A superior litigation strategist will have the self-confidence to believe that he or she can influence and control future events. Last, superior litigation strategists must possess well-developed predictive and reactive capabilities. It is not always easy to find an attorney who can provide you with a superior strategy for your litigation issue. Indeed, it is impossible to do so without affiliating yourself with an attorney who […]

Read More

The Right Lawyer Produces The Higher Quality Franchise Review  Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of lawyers providing franchise agreement or FDD reviews produce a written memorandum for the client allegedly ‘summarizing’ the 300+ pages of the FDD, the franchise agreement or both. This is in almost all cases a waste of time, money and effort. In almost all cases, such lawyer memos are the result of a young associate’s or paralegal’s ‘filling in the blanks’ on a ‘form memo’ already on the lawyer’s hard drive. A more complete and highly accurate ‘summary’ of the terms in the franchise agreement is already incorporated in the FDD. Should a dispute between you and the franchisor later arise, the Court will not be interested in what your lawyer’s ‘summary memo’ told you about the terms of the franchise agreement; instead, the Court will look to the franchise agreement (and infrequently to the FDD). From a common sense point of view, the provision by your lawyer of another 15 page summary memorandum, on top of a 300+ page FDD and a 60+ page Franchise Agreement is relatively useless. Then why do lawyers do this? Very simply it is many times much cheaper and quicker for a lawyer to have his or her associate or paralegal ‘fill in the blanks’ on a form memo instead of personally doing a full and complete evaluation of each of the provisions of the franchise agreement. In addition, many lawyers who practice on behalf of both franchisors and franchisees do […]

Read More

Edible Arrangements Franchisee Forced to Litigate Fraud Claims in Arbitration Fruit Creations, LLC v. Edible Arrangements, LLC, No. 3:20-cv-00479, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156779 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2020) In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the Court rejected as ‘meritless’ the Edible Arrangements franchisee’s argument that the franchisee’s claims were not subject to arbitration under the Edible Arrangements franchise agreement stating that “the plaintiff’s claim that a reading of the “Enforcement” section of the contract as a whole leads to a conclusion that the parties did not intend to arbitrate their dispute borders on nonsense.” Excerpts of the Case: Fruit Creations, LLC v. Edible Arrangements, LLC United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division August 27, 2020, Filed Case No. 3:20-cv-00479   Reporter 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156779 * FRUIT CREATIONS, LLC, FRUIT CREATIONS OF CLARKSVILLE, LLC, FRUIT CREATIONS OF NASHVILLE, LLC, TONY CONSTANT, and KIMBERLY CONSTANT, Plaintiffs, v. EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS, LLC, NETSOLACE, INC., EDIBLE CONNECT, LLC, BERRY DIRECT, LLC, EDIBLE BRANDS, LLC, INCREDIBLE EDIBLES, LLC, and TARIQ FARID, Defendants. Counsel:  [*1] For Fruit Creations, LLC, Fruit Creations of Clarksville, LLC, Fruit Creations of Nashville, LLC, Tony Constant, Kimberly Constant, Plaintiffs: Colby Conforti, Robert F. Salkowski, Robert Zarco, Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, P.A., Miami, FL; James R. Tomkins, Smith & Tomkins, One Lakeview Place, Nashville, TN. For Edible Arrangements, LLC, Netsolace, Inc., Edible Connect, LLC, Berry Direct, LLC, Edible Brands, LLC, Incredible Edibles, LLC, Tariq Farid, Defendants: Kevin […]

Read More

7-Eleven Prevails on Franchisee’s Vendor and Inventory and Good Faith Breach Claims By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Takiedine v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 17-4518, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161103 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 2, 2020) In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a former 7-Eleven franchisee Takiedine filed a complaint against 7-Eleven alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract. The Court dismissed the franchisee’s complaint, but with leave to amend. In his amended complaint, Takiedine pleaded claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, impracticability, conversion, and fraud. In turn, 7-Eleven moved to dismiss the amended complaint and filed a separate motion to stay the arbitrable claims, arguing that certain of Takiedine’s breach of contract claims concerning vendor negotiating practices were required to be arbitrated under the terms of the Franchise Agreements. The Court granted 7-Eleven’s motion to stay the arbitrable claims, ruling that Takiedine’s vendor negotiating practices claims under Section 15 of the Franchise Agreements, including those concerning 7-Eleven’s proprietary products, fell within the scope of the Franchise Agreements’ arbitration provision. The Court also at that time dismissed three of the franchisee’s breach of contract claims concerning (1) fair and accurate merchandise audits under Section 14 of the Franchise Agreements; (2) failure to market and advertise under Section 22; and (3) recommended vendors under Section 15(g). Three of  Takiedine’s breach of contract claims survived relating to […]

Read More