A federal court in Arizona recently granted franchisor LeTip World Franchise’s motion to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin a former franchisee from operating a competing business. LeTip World Franchise, LLC v. Long Island Social Media Group LLC, WL 380985 (D. Ariz. Feb. 1, 2024). LeTip franchises professional development and networking businesses. In 2020, LeTip and Long Island Social Medial Group (LISMG) entered into a franchise agreement to operate a LeTip franchised business within Suffolk County, New York. After its LeTip franchise agreement was terminated, LISMG started a competing business networking company in Suffolk County (“BxB”). LeTip alleged that BxB promoted and purposefully scheduled its launch party a day before a LeTip meeting to recruit LeTip members. LeTip sued and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining LISMG, its principals, and BxB from violating the franchise agreement’s post-termination noncompete provision.
The court granted the motion based upon the alleged breach of the noncompete provision. The court found that the post-termination restrictive covenants were reasonable in both time and geographic scope. The court reasoned that: (i) two years was a sufficiently narrow window of time to protect LeTip’s goodwill and customer relations within LISMG’s former territory without restraining LISMG from pursuing a new business venture; and (ii) the geographic restriction served to protect LeTip’s established relationship with existing customers within the territory. However, the court found the noncompete was too broad to the extent that it purported to prohibit competition near other LeTip territories. The court further found that LeTip would suffer irreparable harm from LISMG’s breach of the noncompete as a result of the loss of current and prospective customers and goodwill. This harm outweighed the loss of revenue that LISMG could suffer if enjoined. Finally, the court held that the public interest is served by enforcing the reasonable terms as written and agreed to by the parties and public policy weighs in favor of granting the motion.
- Partner
Justin litigates commercial disputes across the country on behalf of both corporations and individuals. He regularly counsels and represents some of the nation’s most prominent franchisors on matters central to the integrity ...
- Associate
Kevin is a Franchise & Distribution Associate who assists clients in asset acquisitions and dispositions, commercial contracts and franchise matters.
Prior to joining Lathrop GPM, Kevin was a transactional attorney, where he ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.