-
1 week ago | 
jdsupra.com | David Archer |Eli Bensignor
A federal court in Massachusetts recently granted, in part, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to enforcement of franchise agreement noncompete covenants but denied the motion as to claims of trademark infringement, employee nonsolicitation, and failure to return confidential information and assign franchise telephone numbers. Rooterman, LLC v. Belegu, 2025 WL 1088043 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2025).
-
Oct 14, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Eli Bensignor |Cassie Doutt
The California Court of Appeals upheld a decision finding that a Texas court had personal jurisdiction over California franchisees. GlobalCFO LLC v. Venkataramanappa, 2024 WL 4220439 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024).
-
Oct 14, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Eli Bensignor |Cassie Doutt
The California Court of Appeals upheld a decision finding that a
Texas court had personal jurisdiction over California franchisees. GlobalCFO LLC v. Venkataramanappa, 2024 WL 4220439 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024).
-
Oct 7, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | A Federal Court |Eli Bensignor |Brandon Mickelsen
In July 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) withdrew
its appeal of a March 2024 federal district court decision striking
down the NLRB's 2023 joint employer rule. In that decision, the
Eastern District of Texas vacated the 2023 Rule after finding that
the NLRB's decision to rescind the 2020 rule was
"arbitrary and capricious." Chamber of Commerce v. Nat'l Labor Relations Board, No. 6:23-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2024).
-
Aug 8, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Eli Bensignor |Brandon Mickelsen
In July 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) withdrew its appeal of a March 2024 federal district court decision striking down the NLRB’s 2023 joint employer rule. In that decision, the Eastern District of Texas vacated the 2023 Rule after finding that the NLRB’s decision to rescind the 2020 rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Chamber of Commerce v. Nat'l Labor Relations Board, No. 6:23-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2024).
-
Apr 12, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Eli Bensignor |Cassie Doutt
A federal court in Washington recently granted in part and denied in part a former distributor’s partial motion to dismiss claims for breach of a post-termination noncompete agreement, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and civil conspiracy. HydroFLOW USA, LLC v. ECO Integrated Tech., Inc., 2024 WL 1049998 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2024).
-
Jan 22, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Eli Bensignor |Brandon Mickelsen
A state appellate court in California reversed a superior court’s denial of a massage franchisor’s motion to compel arbitration. Jane Doe #1 (I.G.) v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 2023 WL 8801517 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2023). Respondent Jane Doe was allegedly sexually assaulted while attending a massage appointment at a franchised location of appellant Massage Envy. Doe filed suit asserting claims against Massage Envy and the franchisee.
-
Dec 11, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | Eli Bensignor |Brandon Mickelsen
A federal court in Washington denied the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss an out-of-state distiller’s constitutional challenge to Washington’s distillery regulatory scheme. Shady Knoll Orchards & Distillery LLC v. Postman, 2023 WL 7004422 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2023).
-
Oct 10, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | David Archer |Eli Bensignor
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Court the question of whether franchisee plaintiffs in an ongoing case pass the threshold inquiry under the state’s three-prong employee classification test, which requires a finding that the putative employee is “performing any service.” Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2023 WL 5542778 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2023).
-
Oct 5, 2023 | 
lathropgpm.com | Eli Bensignor |David Archer |Allyson Cunningham |Shlomo Hahn
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Court the question of whether franchisee plaintiffs in an ongoing case pass the threshold inquiry under the state’s three-prong employee classification test, which requires a finding that the putative employee is “performing any service.” Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2023 WL 5542778 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2023).
