A Minnesota bankruptcy court granted Fantastic Sams summary judgment and enjoined a former franchisee from violating the post-termination noncompete in its franchise agreements after the franchisee rejected the agreements in bankruptcy. EllDan Corp. v. Fantastic Sams Franchise Corp., 2023 WL 3394917 (Bankr. Minn. May 11, 2023).

A federal court in New Jersey recently granted salon franchisor Fantastic Sams summary judgment against former franchisees that failed to make payments required under a previous settlement agreement. Fantastic Sams Franchise Corp. v. Weekes, 2023 WL 2696595 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 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).

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.

A federal court in Connecticut denied a franchisee’s motion for a temporary restraining order permitting it to operate until the court could hear a preliminary injunction motion. A.B. Corp. v. Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC, 2022 WL 17337756 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2022).

A federal court in New Jersey refused a motion for default judgment where a franchisor plaintiff and the franchisee defendant were both Canadian citizens. Wyndham Hotel Group Canada, v. Ostrander, 2022 WL 16552817 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2022).

A federal court in Ohio has awarded a franchisor the attorneys’ fees incurred in dismissing its former franchisees’ fraud-based claims, even though breach of contract claims remained to be litigated. CajunLand Pizza, LLC v. Marco’s Franchising, LLC, 2022 WL 3960574 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2022).

A federal court in Wisconsin recently held that a franchisor’s contractual right to approve or deny the transfer of a franchise includes the right to condition approval on the transferee’s signing the current form of franchise agreement. Am. Dairy Queen v. Wineinger, 2022 WL 3027004 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 1, 2022).

The Texas Supreme Court, answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the application of a state dealer law to an agreement entered into before the law’s passage did not violate the Texas Constitution. Fire Protection Serv., Inc. v. Survitec Survival Prods., Inc., 2022 WL 1815046 (Tex. June 3, 2022).

A federal court in New York recently granted a motion to exclude one expert report as untimely filed, but denied a motion to exclude another equally untimely report. Rekor Sys., Inc. v. Loughlin, 2022 WL 2063857 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022).

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a preliminary injunction awarded to fitness chain franchisor Core Progression, enforcing a post-termination noncompete against a former franchisee in North Carolina. Core Progression Franchise LLC v. O’Hare, 2022 WL 1741836 (10th Cir. May 31, 2022).

A federal court in New York recently granted Yum! Brands’ motion to dismiss ADA and New York State Human Rights Law claims brought against it by a customer of a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise. Zuchengno v. FQSR, LLC, 2022 WL 1214406 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2022).

A federal court in Mississippi recently denied motions to dismiss filed by various wholesalers of Pepsi and Dr. Pepper products, challenging tortious interference and unfair competition claims brought against them by Brown Bottling Group, a bottler, seller, and distributor of Pepsi and Dr. Pepper products. Brown Bottling Group, Inc. v. Imperial Trading Co., LLC, 2022 WL 667780 (S.D. Miss. March 4, 2022).

A federal court in Georgia refused to dismiss a franchisee’s counterclaim alleging a breach of a franchise termination agreement between the parties. JTH Tax LLC v. Robertson, 2021 WL 5449215 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2021).

A federal court in Illinois recently dismissed a distributor’s claim that a competitor committed tortious interference by encroaching on the distributor’s exclusive distribution territory because the distributor failed to demonstrate—through draft agreements and other communications with the manufacturer—valid exclusive distribution rights. Midland Distrib., Inc. v. Zest US Wholesale, Inc., 2021 WL 4745265 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2021).