Franchise Community Awaits Amicus Decisions on Appeal
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Blue MauMau) - The IFA is strongly supporting franchisors in lawsuits that could impact the "franchise industry". As previously reported on Blue MauMau, the International Franchise Association has recently filed two "friend of the court" briefs in the Court of Appeals, one in Georgia and the other in California. These briefs, known as amicus curiae, are filed by a third-party to protect its own interests, in support of one side or the other in a lawsuit. IFA, the world's largest and oldest trade association in franchising, has taken the franchisor side in both of these cases, which deal with issues that it feels could significantly impact the franchise industry. And by doing so, the association has stated that it is carrying out its own mission statement, "to protect, enhance and promote franchising," in representing its franchisor and franchisee membership.
But many in the community are questioning the real motives of IFA in its amicus briefs in supporting Atlanta Bread Company and Cold Stone Creamery, both riddled with litigation and problems. Here is the latest status report on these cases according to sources:
Oral Argument Rescheduled in Cold Stone Amicus
Original lawsuit: Lesa Meyers v. Cold Stone, filed by IFA in the Court of Appeals, State of California, on February 7, 2008.
Status: Last Friday, the U.S. Appeals Court rescheduled oral arguments on its own motion in the amicus curiae. It had originally been set for March 26, but has now been continued to April 22, 2008. Blue MauMau has now obtained a copy of the original First Amended Complaint in the case, filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Los Angeles (see attached pdf. file below)
Cold Stone Case on Appeal; Court Struck IFA's Amicus Brief
Original lawsuit: Atlanta Bread Company v. Sean Lupton-Smith, filed by IFA in the Court of Appeals, State of Georgia, on December 3, 2007.
Status: The case is on appeal and has been fully briefed. The Court of Appeals could rule anytime between now and June. After the ruling, the losing side will have the right to petition the Georgia Supreme Court to hear its argument. It could take approximately four months for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take the case. If it decides not to take it, it is then over. Otherwise, it will be placed on the calendar and briefed, and then argued again. The parties could be looking at late '08 or early next year before the appeals have been exhausted.
Georgia Appeals Court Order and Motion to Stirke Amicus:
Appeals Court Order to Strike Motion-Atlanta Bread
---
Related Article:
- IFA Amicus Supports Cold Stone Against Franchisee (Blue MauMau)
- FranchiseTimes.com (Franchise Times, Legal CFR, Appeals Court Strikes IFA's Amicus)
Amicus Briefs:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| first amended complaint summons cover sheet (filed 9-29-06).pdf | 1.2 MB |
Amicus Brief and the IFA
After reading the article on the Cold Stone Creamery appeal, I then read The Amicus Brief.
I'm responding in the hopes that the IFA reads BMM.
I want the IFA to know that every time I find out an Amicus Brief has been filed by them on behalf of a zor, trying to force arbitration administered by the AAA, I will call the attorney representing that zee.
I will offer all the documents needed to show the corruption, that starts in the AAA case management stages, the disclosures made by 2 of their arbitrators that are documented fraud and I will then send Documents that prove an arbitrator was picked 6 months prior to arbitration being filed in our case. I will send them the September 20, 2005 UFOC disclosing that "The arbitrator has been selected and we are in the pre stages of arbitration." They will then get the November 2005 list of arbitrators sent to us for selection.
As for the the zor in our case, Joanne Shaw, the IFA will forever have to bear that cross. What an example of the first woman to Chair their fine upstanding organization. It was also Joanne Shaw who first presented the idea of offering membership to zees into the IFA.
It kind of brings to mind the saying of "Keep your friends close, but keep your even enemies closer."
I want them to know that I may only be one person, but I'm not going to let them continue with Business as Usual.
The speed of the Internet now gives us information faster then ever before. Janet Sparks and BMM put information out there that we would not have had access to before, and it makes it harder and harder to sweep the dirt under the carpet like the IFA is so used to doing.
R & D ......
The IFA is done
Even the big Zors know it. Sure, the Zors may till be members, but they have been busy creating their OWN PACs and hiring their own in-house lobbyists. Why? Because they know that the jig is up.
Everyone, even publicity hound members of congress, know that the IFA is only a Zor shill set up to take advantage of franchisees and hide the dirt with a facade. Federal and especially state legislators now realize that their constiutuents nd the best possible supporters for local re-election are the franchisees who get to see many of their fellow constituents each day (and talk to hem about what a good or bad job that the rep is doing and the results).
It's over for the IFA as a legislative engine.
Amicus and the IFA
I don't think that the IFA is done, but I do think they are open to a kind of exposure they have never before had to deal with.
Communication is much more available as, well as, much faster with the speed of the Interent.
BMM and Janet Sparks have to be a thorn in the IFA r--r.
People can mass together with the aid of communication as well as a gathering.
I encourage R & D and anyone else who has the courage to continue to tell their story and document the fruad.
The most valuable asset a person can have is Knowledge. Knowledge is power
Every breath they take: amicus briefs
R&D,
I believe I am safe in assuming the industry's elite is still watching Blue MauMau just as closely as the mainstream media journalists does.
Every Move they Make, Every Vow they Break...
Your idea in tracking these briefs has great merit.
I think it is important that those professionals who support and profit from this activity are much, much more well-known.
In an ideal world, I'd want their mothers to know exactly how Jr. makes a living. Maybe introduce a few well-chosen former franchisees' spouses to them? A little "mom to mom" chit-chat, eh?
Question
It's not too hard and many simple blogs are free. If you need some tips, hook up with me anonymously if you like.
Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising
IFA and Arbitration
Not every franchisor is McDonald's and the overwhelming majority of franchisees do not own multiple units of well known franchises. The multiple unit owner can protect itself, it does not need the IFA. McDonald's has a good track record of successful franchises.
The IFA should stop sheltering the bad guys and by doing so will protect the industry far better than its current stance.
The problem with arbitration is that the system, as currently set up, takes away your due process rights and places unlimited power with arbitration service providers. This is a recipe for corruption, whether by the service providers or the arbitrators. No one reviews what occurs. The courts give very little review, if any. They merely act as a rubber stamp. Arbitration is incredibly expensive, costing thousands of dollars just to file a claim and thousands more in arbitrator fees. For this, one gets a hearing before an arbitator who may likely be in the pocket of the franchisor. Precious little information is given by the AAA about the arbitrator and his or her background.
The mom and pop franchisee does not know the implications of arbitration when the franchise agreement is presented and cannot know it. Even if told about what arbitration means, they are not thinking about the relationship going sour. They certainly don't know about how the system is skewed to the franchisors.
No one is suggesting throwing out arbitration or destroying franchising. We just want reform of the system. This will help the good franchisors and will make arbitration fair. That is not too much to ask.
Harry M. Rifkin, Esq
www.marylandfranchiselawyer.com
hmr@cohanwest.com
Admitted in Maryland and D.C.
Dream on
Whatever it is that's going up your nose, it aint working.--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Exposing Corruption in the AAA
I wish R&D great success in exposing the corruption in the AAA.
Because the arbitrators have much more power that a judge, they are insulated and eventually the "absolute power corrupts" as is demonstrated in the Coffee Beanery Case.
Mandated arbitration as required in franchise agreements denies due process of law protections to the weaker party, the franchisee, and lets not pretend that this isn't the intent of mandated arbitration and venue clauses in franchise agreements.
This misuse of process to protect franchisors is a disgusting abuse of the public trust.
Every Amicus Breath
We would love to hook up with you. Janet Sparks can give you our contact information
Reforming Arbitration
Harry writes: "The mom and pop franchisee does not know the implications of arbitration when the franchise agreement is presented and cannot know it. Even if told about what arbitration means, they are not thinking about the relationship going sour. They certainly don't know about how the system is skewed to the franchisors.
No one is suggesting throwing out arbitration or destroying franchising. We just want reform of the system. This will help the good franchisors and will make arbitration fair. That is not too much to ask."
Harry did you read my analysis of the Coldstone's Dispute Resolution according the the AAFD's Standard?
Be interested in what you thought.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
IFA Lobby of the Courts
When you research, you see how the IFA has always tried to influence the court on behalf of the franchisor, and they have been successful. Franchisees really have no representation with the Congress or in the Courts because they don't have the financial resources to be friendly with the Congress or the Courts.
DLA Piper probably holds the prize for number of Amicus Briefs submitted to the courts on behalf of ZOR members of the IFA and they advertise their successes on the Internet. What is the cost of an Amicus Brief ---$50,000, $75,000, or more?
Dream on!
Dreams
Richard, I think it is working well! Our guest poster has left not only the planet but the solar system.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Amicus
I read the analysis and agreed on most points. However, our contract also disclosed that the arbitration award would be in writing and would include findings of fact and law.
I don't have to say anything else about that.
R & D.......
We will make sure Harry reads it as well
Now wouldn't it have been nice
if franchisees listened to me during the last ten years when I wanted them to start writing checks in suport of a REAL franchisee association - not those chatting chipmunks in california who accomplish nothing but noise.
A REAL association would have sufficient resources to counter the DLA Piper work and provide the courts with a competent statement to show qualitatively - not just in a whining mode - what it is that would constitute real justice under law in the franchising business.
But instead of doing that, franchisees just whine that franchisors have what they don't have - an effective association with adequate resources to present franchisor positions competently.-
Now I know that nothing will change. Franchisees will continue to whine and to join useless, marginal groups like the California Chipmunk Society. I know we will still hear the same impotent whining that we always hear when cheapskates get what they pay for - NOTHING = NOTHING.-
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
What business is Janet Sparks in?
Umm... here in New York, Les Stewart proposing an "anonymous" "hook up" and the Guest's response might be misinterpreted.
But then again, perhaps our minds are in the gutter. We seem to be a bit more randy than most of the country (with the notable exception of the McGreevy clan, which is over in Jersey).
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Or that Solomon chap from
Or that Solomon chap from Texas. Word has it that Mr. SpuddiePie has the goods on him. - LOL!!!
FuwaFuwaUsagi