Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Tennessee Federal Court Compels Arbitration in Fraudulent Inducement Case and Grants Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of Noncompete
Posted in Arbitration

A federal court in Tennessee granted franchisor Frost Shades’ motion to compel arbitration of franchisee Lunt’s fraudulent inducement of contract claims, but the court also granted in part franchisee Lunt’s request for a preliminary injunction preventing Frost Shades’ enforcement of noncompete restrictions under the franchise agreement while that arbitration was pending. Lunt v. Frost Shades Franchising, LLC, 2023 WL 3484202 (M.D. Tenn. May 16, 2023). Lunt brought an action against Frost Shades and its owners for fraudulent inducement to contract, including claims of affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Lunt alleged that Frost Shades failed to disclose in the franchise disclosure document past legal actions involving its directors, officers, and others with management responsibility. It also sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Frost Shades’ enforcement of the noncompete covenant in the franchise agreement pending resolution of the claims. Frost Shades moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.

The court granted Frost Shades’ motion to compel arbitration. It rejected Lunt’s argument that the substantive law of Tennessee prohibits the arbitration of fraudulent inducement claims, because the Federal Arbitration Act and terms of the contract control the breadth of the arbitration provision. The court further explained that nothing in the franchise agreement reflected a meeting of the minds to exclude fraudulent inducement claims from arbitration. The court also granted Lunt’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Frost Shades enforcing the noncompete covenants against Lunt pending the resolution of the claims because Lunt could face irreparable harm if he was not able to pursue business opportunities with another window installation company. This harm, according to the court, outweighed Frost Shades’ interest in enforcing the noncompete restrictions because Frost Shades remains capable of selling franchises wherever it complies with state franchising laws.

*Pierce Rose is a Summer Associate for Lathrop GPM who contributed to the writing of this post.

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