A federal court in Ohio denied a distributor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that it failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against a beer importer who chose a different distributor following the bankruptcy of a previous importer. Cavalier Distrib. Co. v. Lime Ventures, 2023 WL 2384440 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2023). Cavalier was the Ohio distributor for two different Belgian beer breweries, whose beer it obtained through an importer, Shelton Brothers. When Shelton went bankrupt, Lime became the breweries’ importer and began to use a different Ohio distributor. Cavalier sued Lime and the breweries, alleging that Lime tortiously interfered with its relationship with the breweries and that the three companies had violated its rights under Ohio’s beer franchise statue. Cavalier did not serve process on either brewery, but moved for preliminary injunction against all three parties soon after filing its complaint. One brewery responded to challenge the court’s personal jurisdiction over it. Lime argued that it had no obligation to sell beer to Cavalier following Shelton’s bankruptcy.
The court declined to enter an injunction against the breweries because they had not been properly served, and because of the court’s doubts as to whether either brewery had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to establish personal jurisdiction. As for Lime, the court held that Cavalier’s franchise relationship was with Shelton, and that relationship was terminated by Shelton’s bankruptcy. Without a franchise relationship, Cavalier could have no claim against Lime for violating the beer franchise statute. Without an existing relationship with Shelton, Cavalier could have no claim against Lime for tortiously interfering with Cavalier’s relationship with Shelton. The court further concluded that, while Cavalier may suffer irreparable injury from the loss of a brand and the accompanying goodwill, multiple potential harms to third parties would result from the issuance of an injunction, which would not serve the public interest.
- Partner
Carlos White is an HBCU-bred, Ivy League Law-trained business optimizer and franchise developer with over 15 years of experience in franchise and distribution law.
Carlos counsels businesses -- from startups to mature companies ...
- Associate
Jason Johnson is a trial and appellate attorney who represents clients involved in civil litigation and arbitration. Jason focuses his practice on franchise litigation, including antitrust, class actions, unfair competition ...
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.