San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in doughnut franchise (2)

Thursday
Jun292017

Donut Holes in Franchise Relationship; and McDonald's Shakes Damages re OT Policy

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
msoroky@lewitthackman.com

 

JUNE 2017

 

Franchise Lawyers

Sam Wolf Selected

Congratulations to Samuel C. Wolf, one of two attorneys in Southern California designated a "Rising Star" in Franchise Law, by Super Lawyers Magazine. Sam was nominated by attorney peers and passed the independent research process patented by the magazine.

For details, click: 2017 Up-and-Coming Southern California Attorneys and Rising Stars

Joint Employer Liability – A Recent Wave of Reprieves

"While joint employer liability remains a looming, omnipresent facet of the franchise industry, franchisors have enjoyed a recent wave of reprieves. . ."
- by Matthew J. Soroky

Read: State Bar of California Business Law Section, Franchise Law Committee E-Bulletin

 

FRANCHISOR 101:

Donut Franchise Relationship Dissected by Court

 

The parent of Dunkin' Donuts was named along with Starbucks and about 80 other coffee sellers, distributors and retailers in a 2010 lawsuit alleging violations of California's Proposition 65 and Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Dunkin Brands, Inc. ("DBI") claimed it doesn't itself buy, sell, roast, distribute or even possess coffee in California, and therefore should not have to put warnings on its coffee. But its argument failed on summary judgment, and DBI will go to trial with its co-defendants in August.

Businesses with 10 or more employees are required to place warnings on products containing chemicals that may cause cancer. Plaintiff, the non-profit watchdog group Council for Education and Research on Toxics ("CERT"), wanted defendants to add warnings to coffees that contain the carcinogen acrylamide.

DBI contended it had franchised all coffee operations to subsidiaries, while it just oversaw its corporate organization, and did not control or produce coffee. CERT pointed to the franchisee subsidiaries' reliance on DBI to operate, arguing that DBI "directs its employees to do all of the acts for all of the subsidiary companies." It claimed that DBI's subsidiaries "intentionally have no employees" to avoid the minimum-employee threshold and that actions by employees at DBI's direction expose Californians to acrylamide in Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

The Court agreed with CERT's argument, determined DBI's "franchise" structure to be "smoke and mirrors," found that selling coffee is not required for liability, ruled the law is to be construed broadly to protect public health, and found DBI's control over its subsidiary franchisees necessarily gave DBI control over product warnings. DBI's list of day-to-day aspects of its franchisees that it did not control - which did not include "product labeling" - only raised an inference that control over subsidiaries could be used to prevent them from selling coffee in violation of Prop 65.

Dunkin' Donuts' loss on summary judgment shows how courts and government may subordinate the protections provided by franchise relationships to perceived public health or other public interest concerns.

Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al., BC435759 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Apr. 13, 2010)

FRANCHISEE 101:
McDonald's Shaking Damages for OT Policy

In Los Angeles Superior Court, McDonald's claimed victory when 6,600 workers seeking $41 million in back pay and penalties came away with less than 2% of the amount sought in a claim that the fast-food giant cheated them out of overtime at almost 120 company restaurants. While the workers are sure to appeal the judge's calculation method, the ruling provides franchisors and franchisees a roadmap for minimizing penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Act deputizes workers as private attorneys general to pursue state labor code violations.

Earlier, McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. ("McDonald's") was found liable for shorting overnight workers on overtime pay. McDonald's timekeeping policy assigned all hours in a shift to the day the shift started. Overnight workers whose shift started on Day 1 and who then started another shift sometime on Day 2 often worked over eight hours in a 24-hour period but did not get overtime pay.

Several factors contributed to McDonald's success at the damage phase of trial. The judge was persuaded by McDonald's expert, while finding the workers' expert unreliable for excluding certain time records from his analysis. McDonald's also persuaded the court its violation was not willful; McDonald's believed its policy was a fair and legal way to compute overtime and there had been no complaints prior to the suit. McDonald's successfully avoided draconian fines and PAGA penalties, but it did not escape all liability. The workers were awarded $775,000.

Franchisor and franchisee operators of 24/7 locations in California, of any brand, should use care to comply with wage and hour laws, especially given the uptick in California of PAGA claims against employers. McDonald's has shown that experienced franchise and employment counsel can help treat workers fairly and limit exposure both in and out of the courtroom.

Sanchez et al. v. McDonald's Restaurants of California Inc. et al., BC499888 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 24, 2013)

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday
Oct272015

Catch-all Disclaimers No Substitute for Untrained Salespeople; and "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right"

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

October 2015

 

38th Annual Forum on Franchising

Barry Kurtz, David Gurnick, Tal Grinblat, Gabe Wintner and Sam Wolf all attended the American Bar Association's 38th Annual Forum on Franchising in New Orleans. The three day event provides an opportunity for attorneys from around the world to discuss industry-wide legal concerns. David Gurnick spoke on the potential legal risks and opportunities of using intellectual property created by others.

 

Franchise Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

FRANCHISOR 101:
Catch-all Disclaimers No Substitute for Untrained Salespeople

 

 

How strong are "non-reliance disclaimers" or "integration" or "merger" provisions in franchise agreements at protecting a franchisor when it really matters? Only so much, a New York court recently decided.

For protection, franchisors often include "non-reliance disclaimers" in franchise agreements. By signing, the franchisee states they did not rely on any promise or representation which, though not in the printed Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), was communicated in some way by the franchisor's staff. "Rather," the franchisee says, "I understand that only what is actually printed in the FDD is true."

To cover the other side of the issue and try to prevent any possibility of being bound by such promises, franchisors include an "integration" or "merger" clause in the franchise agreement. By signing, the franchisee agrees that only the terms printed in the agreement and its attachments - and nothing communicated outside of those documents - will actually bind the parties.

Two franchisees claimed they were induced to join the Engel & Voelkers real estate brokerage franchise by fraudulent statements made orally by E & V's representatives. E & V tried to have the claims dismissed based on non-reliance, integration and merger clauses in the franchise agreements. But the court refused to dismiss the claims and held that the anti-fraud provision in the New York Franchise Sales Act (NYFSA) prevented dismissal of claims just because such clauses were in the agreements.

The franchisees also claimed damage by not receiving FDDs before their first meetings with E & V's representatives. E & V moved to dismiss these claims as well, arguing that the franchisees could not suffer damage from failure to receive the disclosure at that early point because, ultimately, they received FDDs and were fully informed before they signed franchise agreements. Again the court disagreed, reasoning that the very existence of the NYFSA requirement implies that some harm could come to a franchisee just by beginning to speak with company representatives before having an FDD in hand.

Franchisors cannot depend fully on non-reliance provisions, merger clauses, or a "better late than never" approach to disclosure. A preferable approach is to have salespeople and company representatives trained in the rules and apply disciplined sales procedures.

To read the full opinion, click: EV Scarsdale Corp. v. Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, N.Y. Sup. Ct., para. 15,561

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
"Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right"

At one time or another, many people have occasion to be renters who feel mistreated by a landlord. This may be due to delays in repairs, responses, or just turning on the heat. A typical reaction is the temptation to retaliate by withholding rent. However, someone who watches court TV (or knows someone who does) knows that no matter how much one is in the right, failing to send the rent check is a wrong approach and often makes things worse.

In Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC v. Claudia III, LLC, a Pennsylvania court proved this when owners of a Dunkin' Donuts franchise did not complete a required renovation of their franchise location, and then stopped paying fees altogether. Due to their defaults, the franchisor terminated the franchise. But the owners continued operating as a Dunkin' Donuts store, claiming the original default - failure to complete renovation on time - was at least partly the franchisor's fault, because the franchisee owners had submitted a remodel plan that Dunkin' Donuts took an unusually long time to approve.

Nevertheless, the court found for the franchisor, issuing an injunction against the franchisee, prohibiting the owners from ever operating a store that used or infringed upon Dunkin's trademarks. The court noted that even if the franchisee could win its claim that the franchisor was at fault, that would not prevent the franchisor from terminating the franchise. The court held that a franchisee's remedy for wrongful termination is a claim for money damages, not continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks. The court noted that the franchisee never disputed its default nor questioned Dunkin's ownership of the trademarks, and therefore decided there was no choice but to rule against the franchisee.

Franchisees may have valid claims against their franchisor. But, to continue operating the franchise, a franchisee must stay in compliance with the franchise agreement - even if the franchisor does not. Failure to maintain this contractual moral high ground will give a franchisor the right to terminate.

To read the full opinion, click here: Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC v. Claudia III, LLC, DC Pa., para. 15,584

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120