Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Blimpie International, Inc. v. Blimpie of the Keys

Blimpie International, Inc. initiated an action against its sub-franchisor, Blimpie of the Keys, seeking to compel individual arbitration and a declaratory judgment. This suit arose after Blimpie of the Keys, along with 44 other sub-franchisors, filed a consolidated arbitration demand against Blimpie International with the American Arbitration Association, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation. The central legal question was whether the court or an arbitrator should decide if the arbitration provision allowed for consolidated arbitration proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, the court determined that the issue of consolidation is a procedural matter best resolved by an arbitrator, not the judiciary. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was granted, rendering the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and for declaratory relief moot.

ArbitrationSub-franchise AgreementContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory JudgmentConsolidationClass ArbitrationJudicial DeterminationArbitrator's Role

References

Case No. 12-CV-8450 (JMF)

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 16, 2014

Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

Plaintiffs, a group of drivers for a black car business, sued the Defendants, a consortium of transportation and franchisor entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime. The central issue was whether the drivers should be classified as 'employees' or 'independent contractors.' The Court, after cross-motions for summary judgment, applied the economic reality test for FLSA and the control test for NYLL. The Court determined that, under both statutes, the drivers were independent contractors due to their control over their schedules, ability to work for competitors, significant business investments, and independent initiative. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Independent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationFLSANYLLBlack Car BusinessDriversSummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestControl TestLabor Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law

References

Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Blimpie International, Inc. v. Blimpie of the Keys

ArbitrationSub-franchise AgreementContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory JudgmentConsolidationClass ArbitrationJudicial DeterminationArbitrator's Role

Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

Independent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationFLSANYLLBlack Car BusinessDriversSummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestControl TestLabor Law

Hatcher v. Augustus

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment