The Unintended Consequences to Franchising of the NLRB’s New Joint Employer Test
Sep 18, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |The Unintended Consequences to Franchising of the NLRB’s New Joint Employer Test Like all other government regulation, the new NLRB joint employer test has unavoidable unintended consequences. The Browning-Ferris joint-employer decision will likely send many franchisors back to the drawing board to find aspects of their systems about which they can relinquish legal and operational control and responsibility to their franchisees. Unfortunately, the increased costs that the new standard will impose on franchisors will be passed along, in large measure, to franchisees, some of which will be unable to maintain a profitable business. Of these, some will simply shut their doors, and others will be terminated. Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided the Browning-Ferris decision, one that was long-awaited by the franchise industry. Although the case did not directly involve franchise industry parties, the decision did establish a new standard for determining whether an entity is an employer subject to the statutory obligation to engage in good faith collective bargaining with workers. Under the new standard, franchisors can be found to be employers, along with their franchisees, of their franchisees’ workers. The NLRB, in jettisoning the established test of “direct control” (e.g., hands-on efforts regarding hiring and firing), embraced a far more expansive test of “indirect control.” In so doing, the NLRB has exposed franchisors, which, although not the actual employers of their franchisees’ workers, nevertheless exert indirect control of their franchisees’ workers. As the dissent in the Browning-Ferris decision pointed out, for many years the NLRB did not […]
Dairy Queen Store Melted in Franchisee Termination
Sep 10, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Court Closes Dairy Queen Franchise in Franchise Termination By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm, PLLC jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com (202) 293-3947 goldlawgroup.com American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Wardlow, 2015 WL 5178454, United States District Court, D. South Dakota (September 4, 2015) When a Dairy Queen franchisee failed to show up in federal court to defend against its franchisor’s (ADQ or Dairy Queen) emergency motion to enforce the franchisee termination by getting a court order to shut it down, the Judge, embracing a very traditional legal analysis, ordered that the franchisee cease operations. Not surprisingly, preliminary injunctions arising out of disputes in the fast food franchise industry are prolific. The traditional test for determining whether to grant emergency relief to shut down a franchisee normally, in some fashion, encompasses four equitable issues, including: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Regarding the first point, the Court pointed out that irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages. Interestingly, rather than ruling that the franchisor would suffer per se damages as a result of the trademark infringement, the Court examined the factual basis underlying this claim. In so doing, the Court ironically further solidified the jurisprudential principle that […]
Post-Term Franchise Noncompete Clause Killed
Aug 30, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Post-Term Franchise Noncompete Provision Succumbs to Franchisee’s Legal Attack By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm goldlawgroup.com (202) 293-3947 Jani–King of Omaha v. Anthony Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 10, 2015 The infamous and ruinous post-term franchise noncompete clause reared its ugly head again, this time in the Nebraska Supreme Court. Although many post-term restrictive covenants (also known as franchise covenants not-to-compete or franchise noncompete clauses) in distribution and franchise agreements are upheld as valid and reasonable, some of them nevertheless remain vulnerable to successful legal challenge. In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the noncompete clause in a professional cleaning and maintenance services franchise agreement was unenforceable against a former franchisee. As discussed more fully below, in the Nebraska case, the one-year noncompete covenant contained within the larger two-year noncompete clause in the franchise agreement was not severable from the different, two-year noncompete covenant, and thus the entire noncompete clause was ruled invalid. In this Nebraska case, in 2008, appellant, Unlimited Opportunity, Inc., doing business as Jani–King of Omaha (“Jani–King” or the “Franchisor”), granted appellee, Anthony Waadah (“Waadah” or the “Franchisee”), a Jani-King franchise in Omaha, Nebraska. After the franchise agreement was ultimately broken, Waadah diverted a number of Jani–King’s Omaha customers to his new independent business. Jani–King thereafter sued Waadah for breach of the noncompete clause in the franchise agreement. The trial court held that the noncompete clause encompassed a sub-provision that was an unreasonable restraint on competition and refused […]
Franchise Antitrust Claims Defective
Aug 20, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Franchise Antitrust Claims Dismissed in Face of Defects in Pleading Antitrust Conspiracy By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm, PLLC goldlawgroup.com jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com (202) 293 3047 Insulate SB v. Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc., 2015 WL 4760287, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Aug. 13, 2015. Another franchise antitrust conspiracy claim smothered early in the case. This franchise antitrust putative class action suit involved claims by a purchaser of fast-set foam spray equipment against its manufacturer, the manufacturer’s subsidiary, and numerous distributors, including conspiracy in restraint of trade, conspiracy to acquire monopoly power, use of exclusionary contracts to lessen competition, and violations state consumer protection laws. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the motion was granted by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In turn, the purchaser appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which confirmed the lower court ruling. The facts of the case are as follows. Insulate SB, Inc. (Insulate), a purchaser of fast-set spray foam equipment (FSE), filed an antitrust class action alleging that FSE manufacturer Graco Inc. and its subsidiary Graco Minnesota Inc. (Graco) and a number of FSE distributors (Distributors) (collectively, appellees) conspired to restrain trade in violation of federal antitrust law, and numerous state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Insulate claimed that these anticompetitive conspiracies kept Graco’s competitors out of the market, allowing Graco and the Distributors to charge artificially high prices. Graco manufactured FSE and sold it to distributors, who then resold FSE on […]
Childcare Franchise Fraud Claims Strained By Court
Aug 17, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |A Case Analysis Showing the Importance of a Good Franchise Lawyer Coraud, LLC v. Kidville Franchise Company, LLC, et al., 2015 WL 3651423 United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 12, 2015) In this franchise fraud case, a childcare center franchisee sued its franchisor and franchisor’s employees, alleging claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the New York State Franchise Sales Act (NYFSA), and violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (NJFPA). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York slammed the door on the franchisee’s claim for common law franchise fraud by finding that the contractual disclaimer precluded the franchisee from establishing the necessary reliance element for its fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. However, the Court did support the franchisee on its contention that NYFSA’s anti-waiver provision prohibited the Court from applying the contractual disclaimer as waiver of franchisee’s fraud claims under the NYFSA. Because the Court was ruling on a motion to dismiss, in its decision, described in part below, it assumed the accuracy of the well-pled facts in the plaintiff’s complaint. Kidville operates and franchises facilities used for the “care and development” of young children. In August 2011, husband and wife Paul and Catharine Wilder, the founders of plaintiff Coraud, contacted Kidville about becoming a franchisee, and after a series of conversations and meetings with Kidville, purchased a franchise in April 2012. The Wilders’ primary contact at Kidville was defendant Joe Sexton, Kidville’s Senior Manager of Franchise Development. Significantly, Sexton worked […]
Franchise Fraud by Steak n Shake
Aug 14, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Steak n Shake Franchisor Fraud: Franchisor Shakes Down New Franchisee by Fraudulently Hiding Costs By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm, PLLC goldlawgroup.com (202) 293 3947 jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com Cornerstone Investment Partners, LLC v. Steak N Shake Enterprises, Inc., 2015 WL 4094630, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (July 6, 2015) Franchise fraud again. Not surprisingly, another franchisee carcass was spotted lying outside the federal district court in New Jersey last week. The franchisee plaintiff, Cornerstone Investment Partners I, LLC (“Cornerstone”), sued its franchisor, Steak n Shake Enterprises, Inc., the defendant. The franchisor moved to dismiss the franchisee’s case, and the Court granted the motion. In deciding the motion, the Court, as required, relied exclusively upon the allegations of the franchisee in its Complaint; a summary of these facts is set forth below as part of the analysis. Defendant Steak n Shake operates and grants franchises for restaurants offering burgers and milkshakes. Cornerstone initially sought information about one of Steak n Shake’s traditional “Classic” restaurants, which notably operate twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week, feature a full menu, contain typically between 3000 and 4000 square feet of space, and offer dine-in, drive-thru, and carry-out service. Beginning January 2011, defendant began to also offer franchises for “Signature” restaurants, which, in contrast to the Classic restaurant, are smaller and offer a more limited menu. Defendant opened its first Signature restaurant in New York City on January 12, 2012, and this unit […]
Franchise Termination and Spanking
Aug 13, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Franchise Termination Upheld: Federal Court Harshly Spanks Terminated Immigrant Childcare Franchisees By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm, PLLC (202) 293 3947 goldlawgroup.com jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com Creative American Education, LLC, v. The Learning Experience Systems, LLC, 2015 WL 4655087, United States District Court, S.D. Florida. (July 31, 2015) Reading between the lines of this franchise termination case, it appears that the franchisees in this case were doomed from the very moment they uttered their first words at the trial. The scathing and lengthy decision was a victory for the Defendant, the franchisor, The Learning Experience (“TLE”), which had terminated the Plaintiff, the franchisee, Creative American Education (“CAE”). The individuals who had created and managed the Plaintiff business entity were Bernard Loganathan and his wife, Katijah Alaudeen–Loganathan (collectively referred to as the Loganathans). The case pivoted off of two agreements including a Franchise Agreement and a Management Agreement. CAE expectedly contended that TLE breached these agreements through TLE’s failure to provide appropriate training, advice, and guidance and through an improper seizure of the CAE franchise. TLE argued that CAE breached the agreements through a failure to comply with TLE standards and state regulations. The Loganathans were citizens of Singapore, and in June of 2011 the Loganathans began to explore a plan to immigrate to the United States. Because Ms. Alaudeen–Loganathan had some experience in the childcare industry in Singapore, she began to research childcare franchises in the United States. The Loganathans believed that a childcare franchise would be a good vehicle […]
Wrongful Constructive Franchise Termination Claim Succeeds
Jul 21, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Wrongful Constructive Franchise Termination Claim Succeeds By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein Goldstein Law Firm (202) 293 3947 jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com goldlawgroup.com Wrongful Constructive Franchise Termination Claim Succeeds. Tilstra v. BouMatic LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, June 30, 2015, 2015 WL 3953403, is a somewhat rare example of a franchisee decimating a franchisor through jury trial on a de facto termination claim. In this pro-franchisee decision by Judge Posner, of the United States Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit, a dealer in dairy (“milking parlor”) equipment (the corporate plaintiff, owned by Sid Tilstra), in southwestern Ontario, sued a manufacturer of this equipment, BouMatic, a Wisconsin company. Tilstra had been a dealer in BouMatic's dairy equipment for about twenty years. He claimed that the franchisor, in bad faith and deviously, forced him to sell his dealership to a neighboring BouMatic dealer at a below-market price. After a trial, the jury agreed with Tilstra and awarded him $471,124 in damages. The appellate court was asked to rule the district court’s decision upholding the jury verdict.
Post-Term Franchise Restrictive Covenant in Franchise Agreement Haunts Franchisees
Jul 19, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Court Slams Former Franchisees That Steal Franchise Secrets After Franchise Termination By: Jeffrey M. Goldstein jgoldstein@goldlawgroup.com goldlawgroup.com (202) 293-3947 Post-Term Franchise Restrictive Covenant in Franchise Agreement Haunts Franchisees in Capital Meats, Inc., v. The Meat Shoppe, LLC, 2015 WL 4249166 (D.C. Md. July 9, 2015). In Capital Meats, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part a motion by the franchisee defendants to dismiss the case. The Plaintiff in Capital Meats, Capital Meats, Inc. (“CMI”), sued several entities referred to collectively as “The Meat Shoppe” and several former CMI employees who went to work for The Meat Shoppe (collectively, “defendants”). CMI alleged in nine counts that the defendants, when they resigned en masse to establish and operate a competing business, The Meat Shoppe, carried out the following: violated Virginia contract law; transgressed the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”); infringed the post-term restrictive covenant not-to-compete; and committed several Maryland business and competition-related torts.
Fair Franchising Difficult to Achieve
Jun 11, 2015 - Franchise Articles by Jeffrey M. Goldstein |Most franchise attorneys and franchise lawyers will agree that fair franchising is one of the most-used and least understood concepts in the franchise world. If you want to know the truth about fair franchising, sign up for our newsletter, Franchise Trends. Fair franchising is an elusive concept. Many of the best franchise lawyers in the world are not able to readily provide a definition of the term. Without the assistance of a frachise lawyer who represents only franchisees, it is very difficult to achieve fair franchising. As a franchisee, if you believe that your franchisor owes you fair franchising, you’ll be disappointed. Nevertheless, an experienced franchisee lawyer or franchisee law firm can still provide tremendouos support to franchisees seeking franchise agreement assistance. Indeed, franchise lawyers have frequently managed to make franchise agreements more acceptable. But you need to begin the dialogue with your franchise attorney before you sign a franchise agreement. As a franchise law firm, Goldstein has the expertise to analyze every aspect of proposed franchise agreements. Contact us online or call 202.293.3947 to evaluate your franchise agreement and ensure you’re treated fairly.
