In contrast to the California law ruling referenced above, a recent decision by the federal district court in Minnesota underscores the bulk of the judiciary’s strong preference for enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms. In Green v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95235 (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2010), the court granted a defendant franchisor’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff franchisees’ claims and to compel arbitration based on the plain language of the arbitration agreement in the parties' franchise agreements. The franchise agreements provided that American Arbitration Association rules applied, and the AAA rules expressly state that the arbitrator has the power to rule on his or her jurisdiction, so the court would not consider the plaintiffs’ arguments that their claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court also held that the agreements’ class action waiver was enforceable.
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.
RSS Feed