ARTICLE
7 October 2024

Michigan Precedent On Michigan Franchise Investment Law Held To Trump Inconsistent Sixth Circuit Precedent On Private Right Of Action

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 several related franchisors' motions to dismiss a franchisee's claims for violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment law.
United States Michigan Corporate/Commercial Law

A federal court in Michigan recently granted several related franchisors' motions to dismiss a franchisee's claims for violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment law. Benjamin Franklin Franchising SPE LLC v. David Michael Plumbing Inc., 2024 WL 3997056 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2024). The franchisors (including Benjamin Franklin Franchising, One Hour Air Conditioning Franchising, and Mister Sparky Franchising) alleged their franchisee David Michael Plumbing Inc. (DMP) abandoned its franchises and sued to enforce the agreements' noncompete covenants. DMP counterclaimed alleging violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment Law (MFIL), promissory estoppel, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed DMP's MFIL claims after resolving an apparent conflict between earlier Sixth Circuit precedent, a later Michigan Court of Appeals decision, and the plain language of the MFIL. In 1990, the Sixth Circuit implied a private right of action for certain violations of the MFIL despite statutory language to the contrary. Seven years later, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the relevant provisions of the MFIL implied no private right of action. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision. DMP argued that the federal district court was bound by stare decisis to follow the 1990 Sixth Circuit opinion. Because it was sitting in diversity, the court disagreed. In conducting an Erie  analysis, the court concluded that it was not bound by stare decisis on a question of state law so clearly contradicted by a state court's subsequent decision. Accordingly, the court dismissed DMP's MFIL claims for failure to state a claim, as there was no available private right of action. The court also dismissed DMP's promissory estoppel claim, ruling that DMP could not assert a promissory estoppel claim when valid contracts—the franchise agreements—governed the parties' relationships.

Lathrop GPM represented the franchisors in this matter.

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