A case that has stood as one of the only recent precedents for an antitrust tying claim in franchising was dismissed last week by the court in Burda v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145447 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2012). Last week’s decision favors the franchisor, after the same court twice had refused to dismiss the plaintiff franchisee’s tying claims, as reported in Issues 124 and 136 of The GPMemorandum. This time, on motion for summary judgment, Wendy’s prevailed on all claims, including the challenge to the franchisor’s involvement in the supply of products to the system.
Despite this being known all along as an antitrust case, the most interesting aspect of the summary judgment ruling related to Wendy’s termination of the franchisee. The court held that the franchisor could terminate Burda’s franchisee immediately for multiple defaults within a six-month period, even without providing the contractual 30 days to cure on the last default. The “independent right to terminate” based on multiple defaults also was not modified by the final default notice, which, like the earlier notices, referenced the normal time to cure. Moreover, Wendy’s also had the right to terminate immediately based on the franchisee’s insolvency. As to the antitrust tying claim, which the court earlier had refused to dismiss, summary judgment was granted because the evidence ultimately showed the plaintiff in prior agreements had released all claims against the franchisor. The fact that plaintiff Burda was a licensed lawyer was an important factor for the court in holding the releases enforceable.
- Partner
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 ...
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.