Cuppy's Coffee & John Dozier: What Franchise Times Won't Tell You

How a Company and Its Lawyers Tried to Control and Stop Information They Didn't Like on the Internet. An Eyewitness Account of What REALLY Happened.

In the September issue of Franchise Times, there is a lengthy article by Julie Bennett: Attacks From The Blogosphere: What Cuppy's learned the hard way. Readers of sites such as Blue MauMau and FranchisePundit may find what I am about to say as old news, but for the record there is a cryptic reference in Ms. Bennett's piece which needs a brief exposition.

Dozier said his law firm does manage to get defamatory postings removed from the Web frequently, "but it takes a tremendous amount of finesse, strategy, and tactics." Dozier would not reveal what tactics he used to make the anti-Cuppy's postings disappear. "We did what we had to do to get the job done," he said.

If Dozier sounds a bit like Don Corleone, that is in keeping with what went on in the Cuppy's case. It may be foolhardy to shine a spotlight under this rock, but people like Dozier succeed by intimidation and fear. It is the "ethics" of practitioners such as John Dozier which account for much of the public's attitude towards lawyers.

Franchise Times may have good reason to be fearful of Dozier, as with any litigious party. I say shame on FT for pulling punches. Just because a bully has a J.D. doesn't mean you abandon journalistic integrity. Quite the opposite. You are interviewing a lawyer, not some street thug, and a quote like Dozier gave should raise the antennae of any journalist.

Contrary to what Franchise Times implies, John Dozier was the cause of much damage to the franchisor. The tactics of John Dozier were the cause of this minor dispute escalating to world-wide attention; it was the willingness of Rhonda Sanderson to take the opposite approach which ultimately saved the franchisor.

I truly admire Mr. Hibbing and Mr. Morgan for ultimately doing the right thing; and I believe that the victims of Mr. Snowden came out better than had the IRS seized the assets and disposed of them in a fire sale. Ironically, the transfer of assets and the paper trail served to put the victims in a position to recieve just compensation. But, that doesn't change the truth of what happened.

Now for the truth:

Around the beginning of this year, several posts appeared on this and other websites. The substance was that a company named Java Joz was run by Mr. Snowden and Mr. Morgan, and that Java Joz had suddenly morphed into a company known as Cuppy's Coffee. Several of the posts went on to allege that Java Joz and/or related entities had taken monies and not refunded the monies as per contract. The victims then called Java Joz, only to be told that the company was now called Cuppy's, and that there was no connection with Snowden nor with Java Joz.

I posted on this site, and suggested that the victims might have recourse to Cuppy's Coffee and/or related entities under various legal principles including claims of fraudulent conveyance, alter ego, successor-in-interest, etc.

I got a threatening voicemail from John Dozier, followed up by a (much more polite) emailed letter from a different law firm (Nixon Peabody). The Nixon Peabody letter is posted on this site. Subsequently, I spoke to Nixon Peabody and they told me they had never even heard of Mr. Dozier.

I did tell Nixon Peabody that they were free to file suit, and that if Cuppy's chose to file any other defamation actions in New York that I would defend the victims pro bono.

I started getting numerous calls from people who said that they were getting calls from Mr. Dozier. They alleged that Dozier said that the use of the name "Cuppy's" in a blog posting was defamation, and that if they did not delete the posting that they would be sued. As I explained to those who called me, there did not appear to be defamation on the facts presented, and it did appear that Cuppy's could be held liable for debts of Java Joz.

The universal response from the frightened victims was that they could not afford to fight Mr. Dozier. Several of them told me that their lawyer had said that Cuppy's would lose a defamation suit, but it would cost $25,000 or more to fight Cuppy's.

One call in particular stands out. The caller stated that one of the victims had met Mr. Dozier in an office near Richmond, VA. At that meeting, Mr. Dozier passed a piece of paper to the victim and told the victim that the paper had been written by Cuppy's "marketing department". It was a statement which the victim was to post on his/her website, and in return would be paid $30,000 by Cuppy's. The victim was told that if the victim didn't take the $30,000 and post the statement, he/she would be the target of a lawsuit by Cuppy's and that the victim would have personal liability.

My caller read me what the caller alleged to be the exact statement. It was a rather groveling apology to Cuppy's, and also specifically stated that no money had changed hands (which of course was as much a lie as the rest of the statement). I was sufficiently bothered by this call to speak with several people, including Mr. MauMau, Janet Sparks, and I even had a conversation with Dale Cantone and informed him as to what Mr. Dozier and Cuppy's were doing.

Suffice it to say that a few days later, that statement was published almost verbatim as it had been read to me by my caller.

It is important to remember that virtually everything posted by those critical of Java Joz was proven to be correct.

When Cuppy's Coffee first appeared in the online Wikipedia, it stated that the controlling parties were Morgan and Roy Snowden. The majority of early entries were made by someone named "PseudoMega." Although it has never been officially confirmed by the franchisor, several contributors to this site received credible information identifying said individual as the webmaster for Cuppy's Coffee. That is a story in itself, but it is worth looking at the Wikipedia entry for Cuppy's and going back to the earliest versions of the entry. Look at the history tab of who edited it (PseudoMega - bottom line, first author), see the key people, the relationship of the two companies, and look at the timeline. (A copy of the first entry is also posted on Blue MauMau.)

In hiring Rhonda Sanderson, the franchisor made the first of several smart decisions which enabled it to become a textbook example of how to turn a crisis into an opportunity. I do believe that Cuppy's has experienced and acted upon a change of heart, and for the sake of fair franchising, we should all wish them well and hope that other franchisors heed the lesson.

Not all websites are the "Wild West" any more than lawyers are all sleazebags. And where we find disreputable bloggers we should expose them just as we expose disreputable lawyers. The true lesson of Cuppy's is that threats from bullying lawyers is not the way to operate in the Internet age. Rather, open and reasoned discourse coupled with a willingness to work to a mutually-beneficial outcome is the road to success.