Case 8: Singas Famous Pizza v. Ganesha Oak
Einbinder & Dunn, LLP obtained a preliminary injunction on behalf of a franchisor, enjoining a former franchisee from operating at its former franchise location as well as at a second non-franchise location. In Singas v. Ganesha Oak, Case No. 10-cv-8976 (SDNY), defendants opened up a competing pizza restaurant approximately seven miles away from its franchised Singas Famous Restaurant, using the name Queens NY Famous Pizza in violation of the non compete in the parties' franchise agreement. Based on this violation, the franchisor terminated the franchise and sought an injunction stopping the former franchisee from operating at both locations. The District Court granted the motion in all respects terming the former franchisee a "renegade" and holding defendants were enjoined from operating either restaurant and from doing business as Singas Famous Pizza or Queens NY Famous Pizza.
Case 7: Case Dismissed
Einbinder & Dunn represented a franchisee client in defending two lawsuits brought by a franchisor seeking to enjoin the franchisee from operating his health care business after the termination of the franchise agreement on the basis that the franchisee was using confidential trade secrets belonging to the franchisor. The firm's defense of the case resulted in the dismissal of all claims, after the court found that no trade secrets were being used.
Case 6: Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Assoc., Ltd
Einbinder & Dunn represented a franchisee in a very important case for franchisees. The Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Assoc., Ltd., 46 A.D.3d 389, 848 N.Y.S.2d 89 (1st Dep't 2007), affirmed as modified, 51 A.D.3d 434, 860 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1st Dep't 2008), reversed the trial court's order and allowed the plaintiff franchisee to proceed with its claims that the defendant franchisor had violated Sections 683 (disclosure requirements) and 687 (fraud) of the New York State Franchise Act by providing false and misleading earnings statements to the plaintiff. The appellate court ruled that separate questionnaires and other documents containing disclaimers or waivers that the franchisor requires the franchisee to sign as well as contract clauses in the franchise agreement proper are invalid under the Franchise Act.
Case 5: Aftermarket Automobile Repair Franchise Dispute
In a case in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Einbinder & Dunn gained judgment on behalf of a franchisee of a well-known aftermarket automobile repair franchise. The franchisee was provided with pre-sale earnings disclosures. The court ordered full restitution of all franchisee fees and the franchisee's operating losses and attorneys' fees.
Case 4: Encroachment Claim
Einbinder & Dunn successfully defended a national franchisor against a claim of encroachment based on the franchisor's sales in the franchisee's territory. The arbitrator adopted Einbinder & Dunn's interpretation of the franchise agreement as accurate: The agreement gave the franchisee the exclusive right to operate a retail business in the territory at issue, but not the exclusive right to all sales there. The arbitrator also held that the franchisee's own breaches of the franchise agreement barred any recovery.
Case 3: Island Ink-Jet Earnings Claim
Einbinder & Dunn obtained an arbitration award - compensating a client for her entire investment and attorney's fees - on behalf of an area developer and franchisee of Island Ink-Jet in New York City. The franchisee had acquired the right to obtain or develop 47 franchises. The arbitrator ruled the franchisor's salesperson's indication that franchisees on average had revenues of over $200,000/year per unit to be an earnings claim. Significantly, the arbitrator did not determine that the earnings claim was false but simply determined that the franchisor had violated New York law by providing such earnings information outside the UFOC.
Case 2: New York Burger Co.
Einbinder & Dunn was able to protect the trademark rights of two-time AOL CityGuide "Best Burger" winner New York Burger Co. by compelling another restaurant, on the eve of its grand opening, to change its intended name from "N.Y. Steak & Burger Co." to something that was not improperly substantially similar to that of the firm's client.
Case 1: Restaurant Franchisee Shareholder Buyout
Einbinder & Dunn successfully represented a restaurant franchisee shareholder in an arbitration proceeding against the other shareholder in their six-unit network of restaurants. The parties had agreed that Einbinder & Dunn's client would buy out his soon to be former partner at a price to be determined by an arbitrator based on the parties' respective investments in the franchise and the value of their franchise network. The partner claimed his interest was worth more than $2 million. However, the arbitrator agreed with Einbinder & Dunn's client and only awarded the partner a low five-figure payment.
Also see:
- Franchise Law Overview
- Services For Franchisors
- Services for Franchisees
- Franchise Dispute Resolution: Litigation, Arbitration & Mediation
- Representative Franchise Systems
- Franchise Real Estate
- Franchise News / Case Notes
- Franchise Articles & Media
- Franchise Resources
- Franchising Successes
- Bankruptcy and Franchising
- Group or Association Claims
- Commercial Litigation
- Business Law
- Real Estate
For questions or additional information about Einbinder & Dunn's franchise law services, please contact Einbinder & Dunn by clicking here to fill out a contact form or by calling 866-490-4909 or 212-391-9500 to speak with one of the firm's partners.
