Mail Boxes Etc. Remains Confident It Will Prevail in Court
SAN DIEGO (Blue MauMau) - Rich Hallabrin, Public Relations Manager for Mail Boxes Etc., responded to Blue MauMau regarding last Friday's ruling that favors three franchise operators. The California Appellate Court reversed the Superior Court's decision of summary judgment, sending the franchisor back to trial. Hallabrin said, “We view it largely as a procedural matter which just means that we have to go to a court of law and present our case. That’s basically what the ruling says and we are prepared to do that. We are confident that we will prevail.”
In regards to the national class action he stated, “I do not know where that is in the process.” He said he would have to contact the legal team in Atlanta to get an answer. As of late today, no response had been received.
Related article:
Rich had a differant view about SJ back in November.
Rich had a differant view pertaining to Summary Judgements back in November. How can it be that when UPS wins, the judge spoke about the merits of the case but when Big Brown loses, the decision pertains only to procedural matters.
Also, how bad our the superior court judges in California. Mortimer was overturned on 3 separate occassions and Judge Quinn has been overturned once and soon to be a second time.
California Superior Court Rules for Franchisor Mail Boxes Etc.
Submitted by Don Sniegowski on Fri, 2007/11/02 - 21:24.
In response to the court ruling, Rich Hallabrin, public relations spokesperson for Mail Boxes Etc., stated, "this is the first ruling we've had that speaks to the merits of the case and not to procedural matters." "This ruling substantiates what we've maintained all along - that the Gold Shield program (a project of converting MBE stores to The UPS Store) was legal and fell within our rights as the franchisor," he continued.
Some of Judge Quinn's statements are listed below and can be read in full in the attachment, Summary Judgment, IAMCO vs Mail Boxes Etc. USA Inc. (5 pg pdf file).
* "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach from failing to renew the franchise agreements on substantially similar terms or from requiring renewal as The UPS Store"
* "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach regarding advertising."
* "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach regarding support obligations to the franchisees."
* "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach of any contractual duty regarding their exclusive territories."
* "Plaintiffs concede defendant James Amos is not a party to the franchise agreements."
* "Plaintiffs concede defendant 'MBE, Inc. has in fact assumed the liabilities as the franchisor' thus plaintiffs have no basis to contend defendant UPS should be treated as having assumed those liabilities."
SJ in California
I read both Mortimer's and Quinn's decisions when they came out.
Frankly, I was shocked at the complete lack of serious legal analysis.
I know Judges have to get elected in the US, but does postage and freight really cost that much?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
That's why Hallabrin is not
That's why Hallabrin is not a lawyer, but the PR person. And he loses credibility by not telling the truth in the first place, compounded by his about-face on what SJ means (he got it correct the second time 'round).
The California statute remains unchanged.
For those who are truly enamored of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the standard which applies in the UPS cases can be viewed online here .
Look in particular at subsections (c) (f) and (p). Read them quickly and try to get done before you fall asleep; compared to the California code, the FRCP is scintillating stuff.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
UPS
Hallibrin may not have known what summary judgemant was before.
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 70 or less?
Q - What do call a lawyer with an IQ of 70 or less?
A - "Your Honor"
Q - What do you call a marketing person with an IQ of 70 or less?
A - "Public Relations Manager"
Ask the man that owns one!
meaningless standard replies
Whenever I hear any defending attorney state "....we intend to defend our case vigorously...or vigorously defend our side..." I read between the lines. 1) they just printed off a Press Release template from a word processing program 2) their arrogance is matched only by ther denial of the facts in the case and/or 3) they haven't got a clue as to the merits of the case. But it sounds scarey, right? LOL
As for Public Relations, ala Hallabrin, he's so easily flustered, he engages his mouth before his brain. Doesn't he realize he just 'reversed himself'! (Inside joke----'Makes you want to hurl' doesn't it, Rich? We know you're reading this.)
Is Kolman on vonage?
Maybe Hallabrin lost Kolman's phone number, or the long distance charges were too expensive.
I am sure the two Dicks will get together on the response
Oh, Richard Hallabrin and Richard Kolman, whatever will you come up with next. Perhaps, "We cannot comment on a case that now is in litigation"? Exactly how is a summary judgment a ruling on the merits of the case, but a reversal is only a procedural matter? I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I am not a public relations manager, nor do I play one in San Diego.
Procedural?
I don't think you can understate how big a victory this is for Platitum Shield. From day one of this lawsuit, PSA has been fighting for its day in court. On the other hand, UPS has been spending millions of dollars to drag the matter out. Now, a trial date will be set and the PSA members will get their day in court.
The cases will be heard by Los Angeles juries, the juries of OJ Simpson fame. Los Angeles juries have a reputation for siding with the plaintiff and awarding huge monetary sums. Look for UPS to quietly settle these cases prior to trial.
Re: Procedural?
Ridiculous! I think you can overstate how big this victory is for PSA, and you did.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
UPS/MBE
100 lawyers and a million dollars per month is what they pay to still lose.
puhleeze!!!
What the hell is Hallabrin talking about? UPS doesn't have the guts to go to trial on any of these cases. Mark my words, settlement with hush money paid.
UPS will go to trial
And the various suits all have a tough rows to hoe!
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
lol
Lies in franchising. Once again you have it all wrong. UPS/MBE is the one with tough road to hoe. They continue to squirm and delay the inevitable. What's left for them to do? You should tell them to try the twinkie defense. ;)
Re: lol
Fanciful thinking of a lawsuit cheerleader!
They try these matters in a real court with real judges/juries not in the court of public opinion. And you have got to be kidding if you think that the average citizen cares about this case.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
lol
One: stop putting words in my mouth. No one said the public cares or should.
Two: MBE/UPS doesnot have the courage to go to trial.
Personally, I hope they do. I want all the depositions and information on both sides to be public information. I will take joy to share it with all UPS/MBE franchisees.
Be sure to tell your handlers that.
LOL back at you baby...
I have no association with UPS/MBE whatsoever and if you took the time to search my posting history you'd see that!
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
ha!
You either work for UPS or you have waaaaay to much time on your hands.
PSA hopes UPS is dumb enough to go to trial
We have been fighting Big Brown for over 5 years. We have a pretty good idea about "tough rows". Nobody within PSA thinks UPS is going just give up. They are will fight us even harder now that theirs back are against the wall.
What you don't understand, TIF, is that we are pretty tough also. UPS has used just about every trick in their arsenal and here we still stand. Imagine that.
Yes TIF
Just imagine zees fighting back?
Re: Yes TIF
Go home!
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Facts...
it will all turn on the facts. Your emotions really are not helpful to your case. I think UPS really screwed up in their acquisition of MBE and subsequent conversion, but that opinion matters very little.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Facts, yeh right
When they realized the facts were against them, UPS tried to base their defense on the law, that got em past one judge but not the three wise justices on appeal.
So, now that the law is not on their side and the facts are not on their side, what is left. Pounding on the table does not get the results it used to get.
UPS is not stupid, they will try to settle and cut their losses. They will bluff and low ball until they learn that won't work either.
Everytime anyone has stood up to UPS, they have tried bluster, intimidation and when that has not worked, they have bought their way out. They know that going to trial in LA in the same courtroom that Judge Ito tried the Simpson case is not going to be easy on them.
They would have to be stupid not to try to limit their losses via a settlement. If you think they will not do this, then you think they are stupid. You have a right to your opinion, but you'll be wrong!
Paging Bubba Sparky
Only Bubba Sparky could try to untangle that illogic.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Re: Paging Bubba Sparky
So the PSA will employ an OJ strategy. Oh that will work in a civil contractual matter.
OJ lost in his civil case.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
tif
i am new to this website. Who is tif abd Paul steinberg? Are these two involved with the psa lawsuite...they both seem to have strong opinions. Have either sit in on any of the meetings or court cases that have taken place in regard to this case.....How can they speak so matter of fact if they just read blogs posted here???????
Helpful hint
If someone is registered (even under a pseudonym) you can click on their name where it appears in blue and that will take you to a brief bio.
TiF can speak for himself. As to my opinion, I tend to lean toward Webster's analysis but am less certain as to what degree the franchisor will be held accountable as a matter of law; I would hardly characterize that as a "strong" opinion.
If what you are referring to is my posts regarding what "summary judgment" means and what an award of "costs" means under California statute, those are most emphatically not opinions--they are matters of law, and I have helpfully provided links to the California statutes discussing those two legal concepts, and provided a Franchipedia entry which sets forth the federal standard.
Both the UPS spokesman and the PSA spokesman have on different occasions made statements regarding the law which are demonstrably false. Not only does one not need to be a party to this case to state the legal standard and apply same, in some cases a bit of objectivity leads to a more accurate analysis: neither UPS nor PSA are much interested in an objective analysis, for understandable reasons.
And btw: If you take the time to do the research yourself, I was indeed correct on both points.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Re: Helpful hint
thank you paul, just curious about your involvement in this case
clown
No one said that PSA will employ an OJ strategy. Lies in franchising must be UPS because he will do or say anything when wrong.
Perhaps Ito was a deliveryman?
Well, then you explain what this means:
Mysterious non sequiturs do not make for a logical argument. The "Guest" statement remains gibberish.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
what has this to do with a deliveryman
Maybe you need to think it through, perhaps the guest could have helped you with some punctuation!
original:
They know that going to trial in LA in the same courtroom that Judge Ito tried the Simpson case is not going to be easy on them.
punctuated:
They know that going to trial in LA, in the same courtroom that Judge Ito tried the Simpson case, is not going to be easy on them.
or:
They know that going to trial in LA, (in the same courtroom that Judge Ito tried the Simpson case), is not going to be easy on them.