Public Citizen to Represent Coffee Beanery Franchisees in Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – A major Washington D.C. litigation group, Public Citizen has announced that it will represent Coffee Beanery franchisees Deborah Williams and Richard Welshans, WW, LLC, in the US Supreme Court. Deepak Gupta, staff attorney for the group, will head up efforts. He said the organization will be filing an opposition to The Coffee Beanery Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in August. The franchisor’s petition challenges a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court reversing the ruling of a lower court and vacating the arbitration award in favor of Coffee Beanery, solely on the ground that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by holding that the franchisor was not required to disclose a felony conviction of one of its officers.
Last week the International Franchise Association filed a friend of the court brief in support of Coffee Beanery’s petition, requesting that the Supreme Court take the case to “reiterate the benefits of a single, consistent national policy favoring arbitration by resolving questions arising from various court cases concerning arbitration.” The IFA brief states that many circuit courts have different standards for post-arbitration judicial review, and expressed that it was time for the higher court to step in and restore order.
But Gupta said there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take the case because the Sixth Circuit did nothing wrong. He explained that there is no reason for it to settle the standard for manifest disregard of law because it is available in every federal Circuit in the country. He added, “But it will be our job to take on the argument that the Coffee Beanery has made, that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street there is a conflict in the courts. They state it’s because some courts say you can have manifest disregard and some courts say you can’t.” Gupta said they are going to explain to the Supreme Court why we think that is wrong.
Gupta feels Coffee Beanery’s petition exaggerates what the courts have actually said about this issue. He asserts that no court has said that there is no longer any manifest disregard review. And, he adds, much of what IFA’s brief says is just irrelevant because this isn’t a case about whether or not franchising is good for the economy. While they talk about why they think there is a conflict in courts and that the Supreme Court should step in, they are really making the same argument that The Coffee Beanery made. “It has the same mistake which is that it is exaggerating what the courts have actually said after the Supreme Court decision in Hall Street, “And,” he asserts, “the Supreme Court itself went out of its way not to get rid of manifest disregard of law. The Coffee Beanery petition not only exaggerates what the lower courts have done, but also what the Supreme Court has said.”
--
Related Articles:
- IFA Files Amicus in Support of Coffee Beanery
- Coffee Beanery Petitions Supreme Court to Address Big Issues on Arbitration
- Franchise topic:
