Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Court Holds That Termination of Franchise Agreements Did Not Breach Contracts or Violate California Law
Posted in Terminations

The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently granted summary judgment in favor of H&R Block Tax Services (“Block”) in two consolidated cases in which franchisees had claimed that Block’s terminations of their franchises had breached their franchise agreements and violated the California Franchise Relations Act. Devore v. H&R Block Tax Servs. LLC, No. 16-cv-946 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018). Gray Plant Mooty represents Block in both cases. Block terminated the agreements of the two related franchisees after discovering that they were assisting the operation of a competing business, which for a time operated out of one of their franchised offices. The franchisees sued Block for wrongful termination, arguing that they had received no revenue from the competing business and therefore did not breach their in-term noncompetition covenants. However, the court held that their receipt of management services and favorable financing from the operator of the competing business gave the franchisees a sufficient interest in that business to attribute its competitive activities to them. The court also held that Block’s terminations were justified because the franchisees had failed to obtain required employment agreements from their tax preparers and managers that would have prohibited those employees from working for the competitor.

In addition, the court found that the franchisees were not relieved of their obligations to cure all of their defaults because Block had not advised them in response to their inquiries which of their defaults remained uncured. The court also granted summary judgment for Block on numerous derivative claims, finding that those claims failed as the result of the failure of the franchisees’ breach of contract claims or were prohibited attempts to restate breach of contract claims as torts. Finally, the court found the franchisees liable on Block’s counterclaim for damages resulting from their breach of their in-term covenants and ordered an accounting of the amounts owed to Block.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

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

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors