Arbitration Requires Substantial Experience And Sophistication
Arbitration Cases
At Mulcahy Lofstrom LLP, we know that success in arbitration requires substantial experience and sophistication. We also know that arbitration often involves in-court litigation both at the front-end (where franchisees may attempt to avoid arbitration) and at the back-end (when it may be necessary to employ the court system to confirm and enforce an arbitration award) of the proceedings. We have successfully handled dozens of arbitrations, and we have litigated in court both to compel the enforcement of arbitration provisions and to enforce arbitration awards. Below is a sample of some of the cases handled by Mulachy Lofstrom LLP.
-
-
-
Closet Tailors, LLC v. Gary Neil Poisson
In Closet Tailors, LLC v. Gary Neil Poisson (JAMS, Orange County, January 2010), a former multi-unit licensee was in violation of his license agreements for: (1) failing to pay monies due to the licensor; (2) violating the noncompetition provision of the license agreements; and (3) failing to comply with the post termination provisions of the license agreements.
-
Concord Foods, Inc. v. Vistar Corporation, et al.
Our lawyers initiated an action to protect the client's proprietary trade secrets and customer lists from being misappropriated by a competitor. The case was pending before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California.
-
-
Fanfare Investments v. FS Concepts
(AAA, Los Angeles) the firm defended the regional franchisor for Fantastic Sams hair salons in Hawaii against the claims of a franchisee who alleged fraud and violation of the California Franchise Investment Law.
-
Franchamps, LLC, et al. v. Play N Trade Franchise, Inc.
Mulcahy LLP represents the franchisor against regional developers and a franchisee for claims of fraud and violation of the California Franchise Investment Laws, Florida Franchise Act and Florida Unfair Business Pracitices Act.
-
-
Hartmann-Lausanne, Inc. v. Hemocue
(Orange County Superior Court; JAMS Orange County) the firm tried the claims of a Texas distributor of medical products for unpaid post-termination commissions against the U.S. subsidiary of the Swedish manufacturer of the products.
-
IAG Coffee Franchise LLC v. Sanders
(AAA, Orange County, September 2008), It’s A Grind (“IAG”) coffeehouse franchisor terminated a franchisee’s franchise agreement for breaching the agreement. In response, the franchisee filed a lawsuit in Placer County Superior Court alleging fraud, violations of the California Franchise Investment Law, and price fixing in violation of the Cartwright Act.
-
Mesri v. Home Franchise Concepts, Inc., et al.
Mulcahy LLP represented franchisor Home Franchise Concepts, Inc. against a disgruntled former employee asserting statutory claims for religious discrimination, race discrimination and wrongful termination.
-
Mustard Franchise Corporation v. YEK, Inc.
(AAA, Orange County, March 2008), Mustard Franchise Corporation retained Mulcahy LLP for assistance in terminating a franchisee’s agreement for its violation of the terms of its franchise agreement.
-
-
-
Vallochia v. Cinque Amici LLC
(Orange County Superior Court; Judicate West, Orange County) the firm defended against claims brought by a member of an LLC against the LLC regarding the ownership of a popular restaurant and the rights and duties of the members of the LLC.