ARTICLE
16 October 2024

Michigan Federal Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Claims Against One Owner Of Franchisor, Denies Motion To Dismiss Claims Against Another, And Compels Arbitration

LG
Lathrop GPM

Contributor

Successful businesses think ahead. At Lathrop GPM, we make it our business to help you anticipate trends and plan for challenges. Working together, we build exciting futures.

Lathrop GPM serves a client base whose businesses form the backbone of our economy. Our clients run factories, build skylines, cure diseases, create jobs and power our world. And we work alongside them the entire way – immersing ourselves in our clients’ organizations and partnering with them to understand the big picture, so we can think past the day-to-day and help our clients anticipate future challenges. From the research lab to the factory floor, from oil fields to skyscrapers – we work as one integrated team to help our clients achieve their most important objectives.

A federal court in Michigan recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction against one owner of a franchisor, while denying the motion to dismiss against the other owner...
Latvia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A federal court in Michigan recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction against one owner of a franchisor, while denying the motion to dismiss against the other owner and granting the franchisor's motion to compel arbitration. BDD Grp., LLC, Plaintiff, v. Crave Franchising, LLC, 2024 WL 4231195 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2024). Plaintiff BDD Group LLC opened a Michigan hot dog and barbecue franchise from Crave Franchising, LLC, which is jointly owned by a married couple living in New York. After entering into a Franchise Agreement with Crave, BDD Group filed a lawsuit against Crave and its owners in a Michigan federal court, alleging the defendants made numerous misrepresentations in order to induce BDD Group into executing the Franchise Agreement.

Both owners brought motions to dismiss, alleging that the Michigan court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. They also brought a motion to compel arbitration, as the Franchise Agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause. The court granted the wife's motion to dismiss, noting that the claims against her centered on her alleged failure to inform BDD Group of certain facts. Such a lack of communication does not give rise to personal jurisdiction, the court found. However, the court denied the husband's motion to dismiss because he had numerous contacts with BDD Group in Michigan, the contacts allegedly contained misrepresentations that formed the basis of the claim, and he was aware that BDD Group was located in Michigan. After dismissing the claims against the wife, the court stayed the proceedings and granted the husband's motion to compel arbitration, as the Franchise Agreement had a clear and unambiguous arbitration clause.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More