The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a finding that a franchisor was not liable for the actions of a franchised restaurant’s employee. Thomas v. Denny’s Inc., 2026 WL 2388880 (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2026). Carol Thomas, a Black patron of a franchised Denny’s restaurant in south San Francisco owned and operated by RKJD Investment Group Ltd., sued Denny’s Inc. in the underlying trial court action alleging the restaurant’s employee denied her service on a discriminatory basis and caused her physical injuries during an altercation. Thomas, proceeding pro per, attempted to state causes of action for personal injury for assault and racial discrimination. Subsequently, Denny’s moved for summary judgment arguing there was no basis to hold Denny’s directly and vicariously liable for the alleged assault and battery. Denny’s asserted that there was no evidence that Denny’s violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, nor did Denny’s ratify the restaurant’s or the employee’s actions. The trial court granted Denny’s motion for summary judgment and Thomas appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s findings that Denny’s was not vicariously liable. Applying the framework from Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal.4th 474 (2014), the leading California Supreme Court case on franchisor vicarious liability, the trial court found that Denny’s did not train, hire, or take any responsibility for the employee, did not ratify the employee’s alleged conduct, and did not retain control over the workplace behavior of RKJD’s employees. Denny’s evidence also demonstrated that the restaurant was owned by the franchisee RKJD and that Denny’s did not own the property location of the franchised restaurant. Because Thomas failed to submit any evidence or argument opposing Denny’s motion, the court of appeal concluded that Denny’s carried its burden and demonstrated it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, Thomas’ appeal failed on procedural grounds because her opening brief failed to comply with the rules governing the content of appellate briefs, failed to articulate a claim of reversible error, and failed to cite the trial court record or any legal authority.