The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Feb 9, 2016

In Minnesota It Takes the Wizard of Oz to Prove Franchisor Fraud

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 12, 2016, in Moxie Venture L.L.C., et al. v. The UPS Store, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3603, hammered the final nail in the coffin of franchisee fraud claims under the Minnesota Franchise Act.

Child Care Franchisee Wins Non-Compete Case by Confusing Everyone

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu states, inter alia, that "The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent." Sometimes, but not often, this strategy, if used by a franchisee, works in combatting the enforcement of a post term restrictive covenant following a franchise termination.

Franchisee’s Wrongful Termination Claim Is Rejected for Failure to Obtain Franchisor Consent to Its Franchise Purchase

In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a federal court reversed its own initial decision in which it had upheld a franchisee's wrongful termination claim against its franchisor. Tex. Ujoints, LLC v. Dana Holding Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70468 (E.D. Wis., May 30, 2015).

Franchise Ownership, Myths and Guinea Pigs

There are some lies in society that are immune to obliteration in the normal course; they simply, for various reasons, sustain themselves as accepted truths over incredibly long periods of time.

Franchisor Retaliation Okay if Franchisor 'More Believable' than Franchisee

In Percy Pooniwala, and Dinaz Pooniwala,v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., Super 8 Worldwide, Inc., Travelodge Hotels, Inc., and Days Inn Worldwide, the matter was before the Court on Plaintiffs Percy Pooniwala's ("P. Pooniwala") and Dinaz Pooniwala's ("D. Pooniwala") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendants Wyndham Worldwide Corp. to enjoin Defendants from taking actions relating to various franchise agreements. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denied the motion.

Are They Franchisees or Employees? Court Not Impressed with CleanNet's Tactics

This putative class action of Sanchez v. CleanNet USA, Inc., 2015 WL 231450 (N.D. Ill. 2015) arises out of Plaintiff Jose Sanchez's participation as a franchisee in a nationwide network of commercial cleaning franchise businesses.

Franchisor Control Problems and the Alexander Haig Solution

A recent case in California federal court, Vann v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC, 2015 WL 74139 (S.D.Cal. 2015), has given franchisors a win on a fact-specific application of the "employer control" issue in a vicarious liability setting.

Governor Brown’s Veto of the Franchise Legislation, Cold Turkey Legs, Churning and Mud-Slinging

Governor Brown’s recent veto of the proposed California franchise legislation was momentously stunning in light of his political background, the legislature’s strong support for the proposal, and the relatively unthrusting additional functional protection that the legislation would have provided to franchisees. Why did he veto the legislation?

NY and LA Times Essays Are Pravda-Like Editorials on California’s Franchise Bill

In an Editorial in the New York Times dated August 27, 2014, entitled “A Better Deal for Franchisees and Workers”, the NY Times recommends that Governor Brown sign California Bill, SB 610, which amends existing franchise legislation by providing additional limited rights to franchisees.

Baloney, Big Macs, the NLRB and Franchise Advocacy

A column last week in the Los Angeles Times, entitled “The NLRB-McDonald's Ruling Could Be the Beginning of a Franchise War” is another example of how top franchise industry ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ too frequently lack sufficient knowledge about the facts and theories they are discussing.