Practice Areas
    Loading...

    Defense of System-wide Franchise Claims and Class Actions

    One of the litigation services we provide is the defense of class actions and other multi-plaintiff cases against franchisors and suppliers.

    Representative Matters

    • Zahava Group, Inc. v. Togo’s Eateries, Inc. (Superior Court, San Diego County, California 2003) (class certification defeated twice and summary judgment granted in claims by group of more than 20 franchisees alleging that franchisor had improperly retained rebates from suppliers in violation of the UFOCs and franchise agreements, and had offered prices for products to east coast franchisees at discounts, to the detriment of west coast franchisees; franchisees had brought tying, group boycott, price fixing, conversion, unfair business practices, breach of contract, and RICO claims).
    • Brock v. Baskin-Robbins, USA Co., 155 Fed.  Appx. 792 (E.D. Tex. 2004 and 5th Cir.) (franchisor prevailed against claims by over 40 franchisees operating in several states alleging that client improperly non-renewed their franchise agreements, withheld material information, made promises that induced them to enter into franchise agreements, and misappropriated advertising fund monies; franchisees sought rescission and damages, and sought to be certified as a class; court denied class certification and granted summary judgment for franchisor on virtually all claims and parties; remainder of the parties received a bench trial, after which franchisor prevailed on all counts; Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s rulings).
    • Manoochehr Fallah Moghaddam v. Dunkin’ Donuts Incorporated, 322 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Mass. 2004) (class certification denied and summary judgment granted on claims that franchisor had retained for itself advertising monies that it had collected in its investigations of franchisees’ underreporting of sales, that such monies belonged to the franchisees, and that the franchisor’s actions were in breach of the franchise agreement).
    • Iosella v. Leibly’s LLC (N.D. Ill. 2007) (representing Culver Franchising against data privacy claims related to credit card expiration information shown on customer receipts).
    • Spal, et al. v. Verlo Mattress Factory Stores, LLC (AAA Arbitration, Madison, WI, 2007) (defended franchisor against challenges to product supply and franchising practices; group of franchisees’ attempt to consolidate actions in arbitration was denied pursuant to contract prohibition against class actions and consolidated cases; individual franchisee’s motion for injunction to prevent non-renewal later denied).
    • Richard Wilcox, et al v. Pirtek USA, LLC, Bus. Fran. Guide ¶ 13,368 (AAA Arbitration, Orlando, Fl 2006) (franchisor defeated claims by 13 franchisees who alleged breach of their franchise agreements by failing to charge reasonable prices for products sold by the franchisees; in response to the arbitration demand, franchisor asserted counterclaims against six of the franchisees, contending that they owed past-due fees and seeking injunctions to enforce the applicable non-compete provisions of the franchise agreements; arbitration panel denied franchisees' claims in their entirety, enforced the applicable non-compete provisions of the franchise agreements, awarded franchisor its costs and attorneys' fees).
    • Collins, et al. v. International Dairy Queen, Inc. and American Dairy Queen Corp., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1473, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 1994-2000) (defended QSR franchisor against class-action tying, monopolization, franchise contract and fiduciary duty claims relating to supply and advertising issues; represented the franchisor in three subsequent follow-on arbitrations 2003-2008, ultimately achieving a complete victory).

    We also have significant class action experience on behalf of manufacturers in non-franchise product distribution context, including:

    • In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation (Minn.) (represented defendant in multiple class actions brought in state and federal court alleging international price-fixing conspiracy)
    • In re Clozaril Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill; S.D.N.Y.; J.P.M.L.; FTC) (represented defendant in unreasonable restraint and monopolization claims brought by two nationwide classes, attorneys general of 34 states, and separate action by Federal Trade Commission)
    • In re Drug Pricing Litigation (Minn.)  (represented defendant in three class actions brought in state court against antitrust challenges to pricing practices in the pharmaceuticals industry)