Coffee Beanery Franchisees' Motion Denied . . . Again

Michigan Upholds Arbitration Award in Favor of Coffee Beanery

ANN ARBOR (Blue MauMau) - Yesterday Judge Patrick J. Duggan issued his order denying a motion filed on behalf of franchisees Richard Welshans and Deborah Williams, in an attempt to vacate the arbitration award favoring franchisor The Coffee Beanery. In response to the ruling, Harry M. Rifkin, Cohan, West, Rifkin & Cohen, attorney for the franchisees said, "I'm not surprised at the decision. It's always a long shot in trying to get an arbitration award vacated." But he added, "The Battle is not over. We continue to believe that the arbitration was a grave miscarriage of justice, perhaps the worst I've seen in my 25 years in practicing law."  In contrast, the opposing counsel Karl V. Fink, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, said, "We are pleased that the judge again ruled that the arbitrator's decision was proper to be upheld."

As part of his findings, Judge Duggan stated in his order that the only way he could grant the motion was if the franchisees had demonstrated a flagrant mistake where the court and parties had been misled, and that in correcting it, it would result in a different outcome. He said, "A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court . . .shall not be granted." He also wrote that a court should not consider issues raised for the first time, issues that should have been raised previously.  His opinion was also that they did not challenge the arbitrator's conclusion regarding seeking rescission in the Consent Order in Maryland. But in his own defense, Rifkin said, "I think I did preserve all my rights and claims contrary to what the judge said. Everything was raised."

Rifkin said there continues to be new victims of The Coffee Beanery as new prospective franchisees are being signed up to buy the cafes, even though the franchisor knows they are going to fail.  According to Rifkin, they will continue to try to vindicate their rights to protect not only his clients, Welshan and Williams, but others as well.  

In closing he said, "We are still waiting on the state of Maryland to take the action we feel they should take in connection with the violation of its Consent Order. We believe that there can be no dispute that they did violate it."  Now, Rifkin said, Maryland has the power to take further action on the violations of the consent decree, including voiding it and pursuing further litigation. 

----

Previous Blue MauMau Article:

Coffee Beanery Franchisees Uncover New Evidence

Attachment	Size
Michigan Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration.pdf	17.45 KB