A federal court in Michigan granted a franchisor, Liberty Tax, a preliminary injunction against the owners of its former franchisee in JTH Tax, Inc. v. Magnotte, 2020 WL 127949 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2020). On January 16, 2018, after significant defaults, Liberty Tax terminated multiple franchise agreements with franchisee Reliable Income Tax. Liberty’s notice of termination reminded Reliable and its owners, the Magnottes, of their post-termination restrictive covenants regarding noncompetition, nonsolicitation, and return of customer information. Despite this, in January 2019, the Magnottes launched “Phoenix Tax” within the restricted territory, actively solicited former clients of Reliable, and failed to return to the franchisor client information and the confidential Liberty Tax Operations Manual. The franchisor brought suit and sought a preliminary injunction against both the Magnottes and Reliable.
The court granted Liberty’s request for injunctive relief against the Magnottes, finding that all four factors the court is required to balance weighed in the franchisor’s favor. First, the Magnottes failed to perform their post-termination obligations and violated the legally binding terms of the franchise agreements. Thus, Liberty would be likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim. Second, the court found that Liberty was suffering an ongoing, irreparable injury due to the Magnottes’ violation of the posttermination noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants, and would continue to do so without injunctive relief. Finally, the court found that the last two factors (the harm to others and the public interest) were satisfied. Preliminary injunctive relief would force the Magnottes to cede an improperly gained competitive advantage and require them to abide by the post-termination restrictive covenants contained in the franchise agreements. The court found that the Magnottes’ compliance with their contractual commitments would not cause substantial harm. Further, the court held that enforcing the Magnottes’ contractual obligations served the public interest. Thus, for those reasons, the court granted Liberty’s request for a preliminary injunction against the Magnottes. The court did not grant the preliminary injunction against Reliable, however, because there was no evidence that Reliable was properly served and no attorney filed an appearance on its behalf.
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.