The Franchise Memorandum

A federal court in Arizona recently denied preliminary relief enforcing franchisees’ noncompete provisions against nonsignatories to the franchise agreement because the franchisor failed to present sufficient evidence that the franchisees were acting in concert with the nonsignatory companies. JTH Tax v. Anderson, 2023 WL 2072496 (D. Ariz. Feb. 17, 2023).

A federal court in Virginia recently enforced an alleged “scrivener’s error” that extended the term of a development agreement for one developer, while enforcing notice requirements to uphold a nonrenewal for another developer. Road King Dev. v. JTH Tax, 2023 WL 2090280 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2023).

A federal court in Ohio recently declined to dismiss a franchisee’s claims of breach of contract, rejecting the franchisor’s argument that the claims were barred by general releases included in the parties’ agreement. SC Am. v. Marco’s Franchising, 2023 WL 2229654 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2023).

A state appellate court in New York recently held a franchisor was not entitled to unpaid royalty fees because of its own breach of a franchise agreement reinstated by preliminary injunction. Integrity Real Estate Consultants v. Re/Max of New York, 2023 WL 2000464 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 15, 2023).

In a case involving an unorthodox procedural posture, a federal court in Oregon determined that nonsignatory franchisee owners are not subject to a franchise agreement arbitration provision. Goergen v. Black Rock Coffee B., 2023 WL 1777980 (D. Or. Feb. 6, 2023).

A federal court in Maryland granted a foreign hotel franchisee’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied a forum non conveniens motion in a personal injury case naming both franchisor and franchisee as defendants. Sant v. Marriott Int’l, 2023 WL 2213926 (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2023).

In 2021, Lathrop GPM launched a speaker series and initiative designed to increase ownership in franchising by underrepresented racial and ethnic groups – as both franchisees and franchisors.