SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on June 19 granted RE/MAX LLC’s motion for a default judgment against former franchisees, awarding the franchisor $231,989.23 in actual damages and issuing a permanent injunction enjoining the former franchisees from using, imitating, copying, duplicating or otherwise making use of RE/MAX marks (RE/MAX, LLC v. Robert Goodman Realty, LLC, et al., No. 17-0526, N.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101788).
RICHMOND, Va. — A Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 25 ruled that Volvo North America LLC, doing business as Kenworth Truck Co., is only required to buy back its brand of vehicles from a dealership that was attempting to sell out to another dealership, finding that Volvo had the right of first refusal under Virginia law (Volvo Group North America LLC, d/b/a Kenworth Truck Co. v. Truck Enterprises Inc., et al., No. 17-1638, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13887).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge did not err in granting Jack in the Box Inc. (JIB) summary judgment on its allegations that a franchisee committed breach of contract and trademark infringement, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 18 in a per curiam opinion (Jack in the Box Inc. v. Deepak Mehta, et al., No. 17-15336, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16362).
AUSTIN, Texas — A buffet franchisee that was accused by the franchisor of stealing confidential information was not the “prevailing party” following voluntary dismissal of the claims and, even if it were, is not entitled to attorney fees and costs, a Texas federal magistrate judge ruled June 15 (Stockade Companies, LLC v. Kelly Restaurant Group LLC, No. 1:17-CV-143-RP, W.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100535).
MIAMI — A Florida federal judge on June 12 found that fact issues preclude summary judgment in favor of Tim Hortons USA Inc. on franchisees’ breach of contract claim but concluded that the claim for tortious interference cannot survive judgment (Picktown Foods LLC et al. v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc., No. 17-21072, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99203).
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on May 31 found that a Domino’s Pizza Corp. employee’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) should be arbitrated because an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and enforceable (John Ralph, et al. v. HAJ, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-01332, S.D. Calif.).
GREENVILLE, S.C. — After finding that a company failed to show that a hotel franchisee expressly consented to receiving faxes as part of a hotel franchise agreement, a South Carolina federal judge on June 12 refused to grant summary judgment in the case on the franchisee’s claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) (E&G, ex. rel. v. Mount Vernon Mills Inc., et al., No. 6:17-cv-00318, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98034).
MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota federal judge on May 14 denied a motion filed by a pizza franchise and property owner to dismiss claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in relation to architectural barriers at a store, finding that one of the barriers identified by a customer remains at the property and that his claims were not moot (Scott Smith v. Bradley Pizza Inc., Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-2032, D. Minn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82592).
NEW YORK — A New York state justice on May 22 refused to dismiss claims for dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and equitable accounting against certain defendants in a dispute arising from the establishment of a Buddha Bar franchise in Tribeca, N.Y.(MProsiemo Limited v. Arkadiy Vaygensberg, et al., No. 654565/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2019).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 22 held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a franchise’s bankruptcy petition just because the shareholder is also an unsecured creditor, finding that the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition is left to state law and nothing there would nullify the shareholder’s right to vote against the bankruptcy petition (In Re: Franchise Services of North America, Incorporated v. United States Trustee, et al., No. 18-60093, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — In a June 7 memorandum, a Pennsylvania federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in part, upon finding that four plaintiff-distributors of Pella Corp. products will likely prevail on their claim that the window manufacturer breached the terms of its “Sales Branch Agreements,” which cover sales made to general contractors and businesses (Pella Products Inc., et al. v. Pella Corporation, No. 18-1030, M.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95779).
HONOLULU — Two customers of the Hawaiian-based restaurant chain Zippy’s filed a putative class action against the chain’s operator June 1 in Hawaii federal court, alleging negligence related to a recently announced breach of the Zippy’s payment system, which they say resulted in payment card fraud (Joshua Bokelman, et al. v. FCH Enterprises Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00209, D. Hawaii).
TRENTON, N.J. —A New Jersey appeals panel on June 5 refused to depart from its 2016 decision invalidating an arbitration clause in an agreement to participate at a trampoline park franchise, finding that the clause does not clearly and unmistakably inform signers that they are agreeing to waive their right to be heard in court or their constitutional right to a trial by jury or explain what arbitration is or how it differs from filing a claim in court (Alexander Defina v. Go Ahead and Jump 1, LLC, et al., No. A-1861-17T2, N.J. Super., App. Div., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1303).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — National Labor Relations Board Chairman John F. Ring sent a letter to three U.S. senators on June 5 confirming the NLRB’s plans to engage in joint-employer rule-making in the near future.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — After finding that hotel franchisees would not suffer irreparable harm if a contract for the operation of a hotel were not reinstated and that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims asserted against the franchisors of the hotel, a New Mexico federal judge on June 1 denied a request for restraining order and injunction reinstating the franchise agreement (Presidential Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. Wyndham Hotel Group LLC, et al., No. 17-0981, D. N.M., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92500).
TOPEKA, Kan. — In a May 18 ruling, the Kansas Court of Appeals partly affirmed and partly reversed various findings by a district court judge in a dispute between a custard franchisor and franchisee, including that the franchisor is entitled to purchase a Kansas City, Mo., property at fair market value in view of the franchisee’s refusal to extend the parties’ agreement (Ronald D. Hendrix, et al. v. Jim Sheridan, et al., No. 117,112, Kan. App.).
NEW CASTLE, Del. — A group of promissory note holders on May 29 opposed dismissal of their complaint filed against a real estate franchisor in a Delaware court, arguing that it is also liable for the alleged fraudulent actions of a broker acting as its agent (Samir Patel, et al. v. Sunvest Realty Corp., et al., No. N18C-01-185, Del. Super.).
CLEVELAND — A federal judge in Ohio on May 29 adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny a fast-pitch softball league from obtaining a preliminary injunction against a franchise owner for violating the terms of a noncompete agreement (NCA), finding that the league did not sufficiently allege that it is likely to succeed on its claims against the franchisee and that it has not suffered an irreparable injury as a result of the alleged violation (NPF Franchising LLC v. SY Dawgs LLC, et al., No. 18 CV 277, N.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89409).
ORLANDO, Fla. — In light of an announced “agreement in principle” between Wendy’s International LLC and a group of customers who claim that their payment card data (PCD) was compromised in a breach of the fast food chain’s payment system, a Florida federal judge on May 25 administratively closed a putative negligence class action to allow the parties to finalize terms of their settlement (Christine Jackson, et al. v. Wendy’s International LLC, No. 6:16-cv-00210, M.D. Fla.).
SEATTLE — A motel franchisor’s policy or practice of voluntarily providing guest registry information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not an action that justified a federal forum under the federal officer removal statute, a Washington federal judge ruled May 18, remanding a complaint against Motel 6 Operating L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC (collectively, Motel 6) by Washington state (State of Washington v. Motel 6 Operating LP, et al., No. C18-337-MJP, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84134).