- within Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)
Case Overview
On May 5, 2026, in L.E.A.D., Inc. v. C.E. Mendez Foundation, Inc., Civil Action No. 25-14237 (D.N.J. 2026), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that a “Preferred Seller Agreement” between a curricula developer and its exclusive reseller could constitute a franchise relationship under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (NJFPA). The court denied in part the defendant-franchisor’s motion to dismiss, allowing NJFPA claims and several related causes of action to proceed.
Key Facts
L.E.A.D., Inc., a nonprofit that trains law enforcement officers, entered into a Preferred Seller Agreement with the C.E. Mendez Foundation to resell Mendez’s drug- and violence-prevention curricula nationwide. L.E.A.D. grew to become Mendez’s largest revenue source, generating approximately 30% of Mendez’s law enforcement sales. Plaintiff alleged that Mendez orchestrated a scheme to usurp L.E.A.D.’s operations by hiring a former L.E.A.D. executive bound by non-compete obligations, directly soliciting L.E.A.D.’s customers using confidential contact information obtained under the agreement, and imposing unworkable trainer recertification requirements. Mendez then attempted to terminate the agreement without satisfying the NJFPA’s 60-day notice and good-cause requirements.
Legal Holding
The court found L.E.A.D. plausibly alleged all three NJFPA franchise elements: (1) a “place of business” in New Jersey under the statutory exception for non-consumer-facing sellers; (2) a “license” to use the franchisor’s trademarks and curricula; and (3) a “community of interest” arising from franchisor control, economic dependence, bargaining-power disparity, and franchise-specific investment in specialized training over ten years. The court also invalidated the PSA’s Florida forum-selection clause as presumptively unenforceable under New Jersey law when a valid NJFPA claim is asserted.
Key Takeaways for Franchisors
Reseller and distribution agreements may trigger franchise laws. Even when parties do not use the word “franchise,” courts will look beyond labels to the substance of the relationship—including trademark usage requirements, operational control, and exclusive-dealing provisions—to determine whether a statutory franchise exists.
Forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses offer limited protection. Courts applying the NJFPA will presume forum-selection clauses invalid when a plausible franchise claim is alleged, and the NJFPA applies regardless of a contractual choice-of-law provision selecting another state.
Termination must comply with franchise-act procedures. Franchisors that issue default notices and terminate agreements without adhering to statutory notice periods and good-cause standards risk injunctive relief and damages claims.
Confidential information access creates litigation risk. Using customer data obtained through a contractual relationship to directly solicit the other party’s customers may support claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and promissory estoppel.
For more information, please visit map.foley.com.
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.
[View Source]