Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Federal Court Denies Former Franchisees' Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim for Violation of Michigan Statute

In Tankersley, et al. v. Lynch, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27762 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2012), a federal court in Michigan denied a motion for summary judgment brought by two former franchisees claiming that the franchisor’s officers were liable for an arbitration award obtained against the franchisor for violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment Law (“MFIL”). The plaintiffs owned and operated a Collision of Wheels (“CoW”) mobile auto body repair franchise. The franchise relationship soured, and the plaintiffs brought an arbitration demand claiming that CoW violated the MFIL. Ultimately, the arbitrator awarded damages totaling over $550,000. The plaintiffs then filed suit against CoW’s former executive officers in California state court alleging that, pursuant to the MFIL, they were jointly and severally liable for the arbitration award obtained against CoW. That case was removed to the Eastern District of Michigan.  

In denying the former franchisees’ motion for summary judgment, the court found that Section 32 of the MFIL creates a rebuttable presumption of joint and several liability for officers and others who control a franchisor found liable under the MFIL. The court also noted that an officer is not liable for the franchisor’s violation if he had “no knowledge of or reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the facts” that created the franchisor’s liability. The court found that while these defendants were subject to liability under Section 32, a question of material fact existed regarding whether they knew or had reason to know of the facts that gave rise to the MFIL violations.

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

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors