A federal court in Colorado found a former franchisee of Core Progression Franchise in contempt and awarded sanctions for violations of the terms of a preliminary injunction. Core Progression Franchise, LLC, v. O’Hare, 2021 WL 2566890 (D. Colo. June 23, 2021). Core Progression terminated its former franchisee, Chris O’Hare, when he began defaulting on monetary obligations shortly after opening his Core Progression franchise. When Core Progression learned that O’Hare was operating a competing business in the same location, it filed an action for breach of contract and trademark infringement against O’Hare. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting O’Hare from operating a fitness business at his former franchise location and from using Core Progression’s trademarks and client data. Because of O’Hare’s continued violations of the preliminary injunction, however, Core Progression moved for sanctions and sought its attorneys’ fees associated with enforcement of the preliminary injunction.
It was undisputed that after issuance of the preliminary injunction, O’Hare hosted training sessions at his former franchised locations and used Core Progression’s trademarks on websites such as Facebook, Yelp, and Google My Business. O’Hare claimed that he was unsure at first whether subleasing the space to independent trainers would violate the order, he eventually stopped when he realized it fell within the scope of the order. O’Hare therefore argued his conduct was not worthy of sanctions because he had eventually ceased the violative conduct. The court declined to disregard O’Hare’s violation; however, utilizing its equitable discretion, it awarded half of the attorneys’ fees requested taking into account O’Hare’s reasonable efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction after the initial violative conduct.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
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.