Canadian Attorneys Say Quiznos' Counsel Mistaken in Remarks

TORONTO (Blue MauMau) - After publishing an article regarding Judge William Griesbach's decision in the U.S. District Court of Wisconsin on April 17, stating he had granted the franchisees' motion to amend, Blue MauMau received a reaction from our neighboring attorneys in Canada who represent franchisees in a class action against Quiznos. In an email, David Sterns, Sotos LLP, took issue with the response made by Quiznos' chief counsel. He wrote, "In your recent article on the reversal of the Wisconsin Quiznos decision, you quoted Rich Emmett, Chief Legal Officer of Quiznos, as saying, 'This is not a decision on the merits.  We remain confident, just as in Canada, when the Court views the facts in addition to the pleadings, it will conclude that Quiznos acted appropriately and that the claims brought against us lack any merit."

Sterns said that Mr. Emmett is clearly mistaken in stating that a Canadian court has determined either that Quiznos acted appropriately or that the claims against it lack merit. He explains, "The decision in the Canadian action was on a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding.  The judge hearing the motion determined that the claims against Quiznos and its distributor, Gordon Food Services, were validly pleaded but that because each individual franchisee allegedly suffered individual damages, the case did not lend itself to certification as a class action." The Sotos attorneys believe that the decision is wrong in this respect and state that they are confident that it will be reversed on appeal.  Sterns adds, "Nevertheless, the judge allowed the case to proceed by the individual franchisees against Quiznos and GFS in respect of all allegations including antitrust violations, breach of contract and civil conspiracy.  There was no finding that Quiznos "acted appropriately" and certainly no finding that the case lacked merit.  In fact, the judge expressed regret at having come to his decision to deny certification."

Blue MauMau contacted Mr. Emmett through Quiznos' public relations firm on April 22, asking him to respond to Stern’s allegations. Although they confirmed receiving our email, they have not responded.

Related articles:

No votes yet

Tags:

There are no tags.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Quiznos reply

Anyone seen a reply from Quiznos Brenneman to the letter sent to him from the TSFA?

Re: Quiznos reply

No - Brennaman will not reply to the TSFA letter.
What does he have to counter with ...... ?
Facts are facts - he can put all the spin his team can muster on his Friday voicemails to franchise owners; but addressing the facts is not one of them.
He will have no place to hide when he gets subpoaened for depostions in the 68 items of legal actions his company is involved in !
Don't believe that figure ? Check out the latest Quiznos UFOC/FDD dated March'08.
Brennaman must have dozed off during the "Business Ethics" class at Harvard.
His resume is severely tainted after his lack of actions in 17 months of heading up Quiznos.

"Merit"

Perhaps this is a bit of semantic confusion. When you say that a court has ruled "on the merits" you mean that a court has examined the facts, applied them to the law, and reached a decision.

In that sense of the word, a procedural decision such as allowing amendment of a complaint is not one "on the merits."

Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400

Canadian Q Action

David Sterns is exactly right.  Justice Perell decided that the class action could not proceed because he thought that there was no economy to the class action route.  Each claimant would have to show reliance and damages.

In no sense, is this a loss on the merits or facts.  

Given parts of the pleading, both David Sterns and Allan Dick could expand upon the current group of individual litigants to a much wider group - which is why in the end I expect that this action will be certified as a class, for reasons of judicial economy. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Neither reached merits

So as I understand, neither the Wisconsin or Canadian cases reached the merits, and to date the decisions have been on procedural matters.

If true, then Mr. Emmett damages his credibility by mis-stating the nature of the Canadian decision. Either that, or he needs a "young attorney" from Red Bank to give him a refresher course in civil procedure ;) 

Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400

Not a Soap, Quiznos Reality TV

Better than a soap - the day to day world of Quiznos - starring the jetsetting billionaire criminal masterminds (p)Rick and Dick Schaden, co-starring the Schaden's former wives explaining how they got screwed but not kissed by this loveable pair in their own words, the secret meetings where Q scum executives execute another plan to screw but not kiss their own franchisees, former Qscum execs remembering the good old days of screwing franchisees without the kiss, current franchisees/hobbyists working another 14 hour day for free, homeless former franchisees fighting to star in Dick's (or is it (p)Rick's) self-serving homeless movie, Papa John franchisee and Qscum attorney Tricky Dick Emmett explaining the difference between a Papa John's and a Quiznos - Papa John's is profitable and Quiznos isn't - and why he'd never, ever own a Quiznos, even if it was given to him; with a cameo appearance by the loveable Quiznos mascot, the Q Man, being kicked and stomped by angry, broke franchisees while standing outside the TSFA home office.

In going through grief

You always get to the point where you have to laugh. Guest thanks for the good laugh. I needed it.

As the Quiznos world turns!

Perhaps we should start a new soap opera.

No kidding it is a soap opera!

Instead of Dallas they should call it Denver or Schaden Place, Ricky and Dicky's Dynasty.

    Syndicate content