Judge Promises One-sided Decision after UPS Trial Ends

BREAKING: LOS ANGELES – Yesterday, Judge William Highberger ended the Morgate v United Parcel Services trial stating, “I am going to take the matter under submission and give a written decision.” He said he would take the position of one sideor the other. “I am not going to say you are both wrong. Whatever ruling I make on this is a ruling of law, not a ruling of fact.” He also set the date for the class action lawsuit for August 25.

 

That concluded the reporting from correspondent Cynthia Cohen, Ph.D. for Courtroom View Network (CVN), after the second day of trial. She said that the judge indicated that he believes there are merits on both sides and he has taken this case under submission. He also invited the losing side to take their case to the Court of Appeals to look further at the issues. As they get the ruling from Judge Highberger, Cohen said CVN will report it.

Both sides gave their rebuttal to conflicting arguments of the trial. Michael Aguirre, attorney for the franchisee plaintiffs, made his key points asking “with what consent was given for unilateral change?” Referring to the Badie case, he said subject to provisions of the agreement there shall be no changes if they unreasonably , materially increase franchisees’ obligations.  The second point Aguirre made was UPS giving bad faith reading. Referring to the Carma case he said they can do what they wanted to do. But he asserts, the franchisor had the right to tweak the name and they didn’t do that in 20 years. “That’s why the changing of the name is governed by good faith,” he argued.

After Aguirre raised the proposition referred to as the “reduction to the absurd,” he said “Mr McDonald said it could make any change without regard to good faith, what parties agree to, etc., that would be an absurd result,” according to Cohen’s report.  But in Mark McDonald’s rebuttal, he started with that last point. He said he wanted to show the inconsistency of their position, stating, “It would be absurd to interpret it as if they wanted to renew, to sign a “then-current” contract…but then they showed a document that says, “well that’s the law”...that is clearly not an absurd proposition. Again we are not deciding issues of fact; we are interpreting a document,” CVN reported.

McDonald further explained that all franchisees operated for their full term without modifications.  He said that contract came to an end. They agreed to the one condition of renewal: to abide by the terms and conditions of the “then-current” contract agreement.  He again stated there is no language in the contract to support “evolutionary not revolutionary” change, which Aguirre argued in his opening statements.

Read the detailed report by Cynthia Cohen of Courtroom View Network after she sat in on the trial each day in Los Angeles and blogged about the proceedings that took place. ($25 subscription fee required to have access to all of the blogs)

--

Related Reading:

• UPS Defends Right to Change MBE at Trial
• Attorney Argues 'Evolution, Not Revolution' in UPS Trial
• UPS, Mail Boxes Feud Heads to Court
• Publishers Jointly Offer Daily Coverage of UPS Store Trial
• Amos Exposes Insider Information in UPS Acquisition of MBE
• UPS Denies Existence of Feasibility Study, Now Unsealed as Evidence