David J. Kaufmann Franchise Case Law Developments
In this edition of his Franchising column, David J. Kaufmann explores recent decisions in the field, touching on issues from broker liability for fraud in New York, to questions of vicarious liability.
December 23, 2020 at 12:30 PM
11 minute read
Franchise Broker, Independent of Its Client Franchisor, May Be Held Liable for New York Franchise Act Fraud Claims. In a stunning development, a Minnesota federal court magistrate recommended in seven cases involving the same franchisor—and the court adopted the recommendations—that a franchise broker may be held liable for New York Franchise Act fraud claims related to the broker's franchise sales activities on behalf of franchisor I Love Kickboxing (ILKB) (The defendant franchise broker was also deemed possibly liable for violations of the Minnesota Franchise Act.) Golden Polar Bear v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-484 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. 19-CV-484 MJD/ECW (D. Minn. 2020); Rise Above Fitness v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-1435 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted as modified, No. CV 19-1435 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020); Johnson v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-1417 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. CV 19-1417 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020); Xiaolin Li v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-1267 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. CV 19-1267 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020); Hamilton v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-1426 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. CV 19-1426 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020); Orange Rabbit v. Franchoice, No. 19-CV-687 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. CV 19-687 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020); and Hasko v. FranChoice, No. 19-CV-702 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2019), report and rec. adopted, No. CV 19-702 (MJD/ECW) (D. Minn. 2020).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute read
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
