Roberts/McKay v C.R. England

Latest Blog Entries.

Friday, September 30, 2011 7:13:26 PM The Case for More, Not Less, Franchisee Protection Current franchise laws and regulations do not go far enough to protect the interests of franchisees against often times overreaching franchisors.

Friday, September 30, 2011 7:10:28 PM Support the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 (House Bill 1020) Federal appellate courts continue to put their full weight behind arbitration and erode the flexibility of judges to set aside or at least limit one-sided arbitration schemes and results.

Friday, September 30, 2011 7:08:48 PM Welcome to Franchisee Law Blog Lagarias & Boulter, L.L.P. devotes itself to keeping up-to-date on issues important to the franchising community and to franchisees in particular.

Franchise Law

---

Franchise Law Cases

Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. has litigated many significant franchise cases. Some are noted below, click on the case name to view the case. If you have questions about any of these cases, please contact Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P.

 

In Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp. 622 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2010) Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. won a significant victory for franchisees before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that California law applied despite a Texas choice of law provision of the agreement. In addition, the court adopted the Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. argument that there is no requirement that a party challenge an arbitration clause in the party’s complaint -- a challenge presented for the first time in an opposition to a motion to compel can and should be ruled upon by a court of law.

 

In Prudence Corp. v. Shred-It America, Inc. 2010 WL 582597 (9th Cir. 2010) Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented a franchisee in trial and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed an order renewing a franchise on the original terms where the franchisor sought to delay renewal and take advantage of the delay to negotiate better terms. The Court also upheld a substantial award of attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100,000.

 

In Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp. 2008 WL 3876341 (E.D.Cal.,2008), Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented a franchisee in the defense of a franchisor’s motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement. The trial court found that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that California law applied despite a Texas choice of law provision of the agreement. The franchisor appealed and this case is currently in abeyance pending resolution of a United States Supreme Court decision in another case relating to arbitration.

 

In McGuire v. CoolBrands Smoothies Franchise, LLC 2007 WL 2381545 (2007) Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented a franchisee in the defense of a franchisor’s motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement. The trial court found that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that California law applied despite a New York choice of law provision of the agreement. The franchisor appealed and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in full.

 

In Independent Ass'n of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court 133 Cal.App.4th 396, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 659 (2005), Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented franchisees in the defense of a franchisor’s motion to enforce an unconscionable an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement. The Court of Appeal held that such a clause could not be used to force franchisees to litigate their claims on an individual basis as opposed to group actions and/or class actions. The Court of Appeal also and struck down provisions improperly limiting damages and statutes of limitations.

---