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.
|
Practice Areas
Franchise Law
Franchisees, dealers and distributors and most small businesses are among the
least represented groups in our country. Franchisees and dealers, indeed most
small businesses and individuals are often asked to sign detailed, complex and
one-sided agreements drafted by the franchisor’s lawyers. Having been involved
in reviewing and litigating disputes on such agreements for decades, we believe
it is imperative for franchisees to receive legal advice before they sign or
renew these agreements. For this reason, Lagarias & Boulter, L.L.P. usually
offers a flat fee to review franchise or other agreements and accompanying
offering circulars.
Our experience in representing franchisees, distributors and dealers in their
relationship disputes has taught us to seek the client's objective first.
Sometimes a satisfactory resolution may be obtained by unilateral action or by
negotiation. In other instances arbitration, litigation or trial are necessary.
In this regard we address common franchise and distributorship issues including
rescission of the agreement and return of funds, breach of contract including
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, encroachment and other unfair
competition by the franchisor, misuse of advertising funds, cram-downs of new
and unfair contract terms, misrepresentations and non-disclosures in the offer
and sale of franchises, violations of franchise statutes, improper terminations
in breach of contract or statutes, improper pricing in violation of Uniform
Commercial Code, antitrust laws, and other unfair trade practices. Please see
the following Articles for further information on the franchise litigation:
Click on the article title to view the article. You can also download the
articles in either PDF or Word format.
Employment Law
The firm litigates cases involving a variety of employment matters. These
include violations of state and federal employment statutes involving minimum
and overtime wages, discrimination, disabilities, wrongful termination, and
other working conditions. The firm represents clients in state and federal
court, and before state and federal administrative agencies.
The firm also prosecutes appeals when necessary to protect its clients’ rights
and advance the rights of employees.
In
Ramsdell v. Lenscrafters, Inc., 135 Fed. Appx. 130 (9th Cir. 2005) the
firm successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals that a
prohibition of class action lawsuits in employment arbitration agreements was
unconscionable.
In Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (Cal. 2005) the firm litigated an
important employee rights issue before the California Supreme Court.
Specifically, the case addressed whether officers, directors, and shareholders
of corporate employers could be liable for unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
Although the court rejected such liability on the state of the law, Justice
Moreno urged the legislature to extend such liability:
|
“The abuse of the corporate form to avoid paying overtime wages is well
documented….The exploitation of such vulnerable workers by unscrupulous
individuals hiding behind the corporate form takes place against a backdrop of
diminished public resources for the enforcement of the state's labor laws….. the
federal equivalent of section 1194 contained in the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) has long given workers this right under a definition of "employer" that
includes [corporate officers]… Taking a leaf from federal law, the Legislature
could similarly authorize section 1194 actions against such individuals. I urge
the Legislature to do so.”
|
In addition, the firm assists its business clients in connection with the
implementation of employment policies, personnel matters, employee benefits and
independent contracting arrangements.