Mulcahy LLP

Mulcahy LLP Newsletter

The Mulcahy LLP Newsletter is a publication providing news, updates and analysis on Ninth Circuit and California law as it pertains to antitrust, unfair competition, distribution and franchising.


Published December 6, 2013
Lawfully “Terminated” Motorcycle Dealer Retains Right to Recover Damages For Unlawful Refusal to Allow Transfer of Franchise

james-mulcahyVery often, bad facts produce judicial pronouncements that ostensibly appear logically tortured, but which, upon closer observation, reflect the Court’s attempt to exercise its perception of good judgment and fundamental fairness.

On November 26, 2013, a California appellate court provided an example of this phenomenon. In Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 949 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal affirmed a $1,336,080 judgment in favor of a motorcycle dealer and against its distributor, concluding that the lawfully “terminated” dealer nevertheless was rightfully entitled to sue for – and recover from the distributor – compensatory and punitive damages resulting from the distributor’s wrongful refusal to consent to the sale of the “terminated” dealer’s assets and franchise agreement to another dealer. Powerhouse suggests that, when presented with disturbing facts, the law can emphasize practicality over legal construct.

View Complete Article >>>


Published November 10, 2013
Monster Beverage Company – A Case Study Of Vertical Distribution Landmines

James Mulcahy & Kevin A. AdamsPotential liability for product defects is an expensive and non-trivial concern for all manufactures and their distributors. In recent years, no product has been under more fire than Monster Beverage Company’s popular caffeinated “Monster Energy” drinks.

In a little over a year, a dozen lawsuits have been filed against Monster concerning the safety of the caffeine levels in Monster Energy drinks. These cases include claims for unfair competition, wrongful death, shareholder derivative actions and class actions. Monster does not stand alone as many of the lawsuits name individuals from Monster’s executive team and even distributors as defendants.

View Complete Article >>>


Published November 26, 2013
Burger King Avoids The Venue Restrictions Of The California Franchise Relations Act

kevin adamsThe U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in the case of Musavi v. Burger King Corp., recently dismissed the franchisees’ lawsuit against Burger King – finding that the California Franchise Relations Act (the “CFRA”) did not bar the non-California forum selection clause in the parties’ contract.

On January 15, 2013, Burger King terminated its franchise agreements with plaintiffs – multi-unit operators since 2007 – for “unpaid rent, royalty, advertising, common area maintenance, and property tax charges.” The next day, the parties entered into a Limited License Agreement (the “LLA”), which confirmed Burger King’s termination of the franchise agreements, and allowed the plaintiffs to continue operating their stores for a limited time for the purpose of selling the franchises. The deadline set by the LLA was May 29, 2013, more than four months after the parties entered into the LLA.

View Complete Article >>>


Published November 14, 2013
Excessive Arbitration Fees Not Enough To Allow Franchisee To Avoid Arbitration

kevin adamsLast week, the California Northern District Court denied a franchisee’s request for a temporary restraining order – asking the court to enjoin the franchisor from arbitrating the parties’ dispute – because the franchisee’s anticipated injuries were limited to the substantial sums of money he would have to pay the American Arbitration Association, the arbitrator and others defending the arbitration. The court found that these expenses would not subject the franchisee to irreparable harm as is required for a TRO to issue.

View Complete Article >>>


Published December 10, 2013
The Elegance of Franchising

Steve EmmonsThe word “elegance” can be defined as “ingeniously simple.” Put another way elegance is combining effectiveness with simplicity. If your business depends on several retail units to reach your customers, franchising may well be the most elegant business structure available to you. Here’s what you should consider.

The basic components of successful, multi-unit retailing include:

  1. Customers spread too far to be serviced from one outlet;
  2. Capital needs met;
  3. Local knowledge, significance, and decision-making;
  4. Quality control and improvement; and
  5. Increasing brand power.

 

View Complete Article >>>


Published December 5, 2013
California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer

kevin adamsEarlier this week, in an unpublished opinion, a California appellate court imposed strict products liability on a Ventura County car dealership despite its limited role as a non-profiting, “pass-through” participant of a car sale between General Motors and the customer.

In 2008, plaintiff Fernando Ibarra was paralyzed after a rollover accident while driving a 2000 Chevrolet pickup truck. Some eight years earlier, the truck was purchased directly from General Motors Company (“GM”) by one of GM’s “National Account Customers.” The truck was later sold to plaintiff’s employer and then used by plaintiff at the time of his accident.

View Complete Article >>>

Stay Connected

sn_facebook_off.jpg wp_off.gif LinkedIn

In This Issue

>>

Competition Law Specialists

>>

Lawfully “Terminated” Motorcycle Dealer Retains Right to Recover Damages For Unlawful Refusal to Allow Transfer of Franchise: By James Mulcahy

>>

Monster Beverage Company – A Case Study Of Vertical Distribution Landmines: By James M. Mulcahy & Kevin A. Adams

>>

Burger King Avoids The Venue Restrictions Of The California Franchise Relations Act: By Kevin A. Adams

>>

Excessive Arbitration Fees Not Enough To Allow Franchisee To Avoid Arbitration: By Kevin A. Adams

>>

The Elegance of Franchising: By Steve Emmons

>>

California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer: By Kevin A. Adams

>>

Who We Are

>>

Practice Areas

Mulcahy LLP Consultation

Who We Are

Mulcahy LLP is a boutique litigation firm that provides legal services to franchisors, manufacturers and other companies in the areas of antitrust, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, and franchise and distribution laws. Our years of hands-on experience as former General Counsels and seasoned litigators provide us with the expertise to achieve our clients' business goals.

Our primary objective is to provide our clients with the highest quality legal services with a small firm touch to efficiently and cost-effectively aid them in achieving their business goals. A true competition, franchise and distribution firm like Mulcahy LLP is a recognized expert in the industry. Our lawyers understand the relationship between litigation strategy and business needs to craft innovative solutions for our clients.

We are committed to providing every client with industry-leading legal services along with the personal attention and efficiency only available from a boutique law firm.

Based in Southern California, the firm serves clients nationally.

Practice Areas

Mulcahy LLP specializes in providing legal services to franchisors, manufacturers, distributors, and other businesses in the following areas:

>>

Antitrust & Trade Regulation

>>

Franchise Law

>>

Trademark, Trade Secret & Copyright Litigation

>>

Distribution & Manufacturer Litigation

>>

Unfair Competition

>>

Corporate Advice/Counseling


sn_facebook_off.jpg wp_off.gif LinkedIn

About Us | Practice Areas | Contact Us

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1230
Irvine, CA 92614
T 949.252.9377
F 949.252.0090

Copyright ©2012 Mulcahy LLP. All rights reserved. The transmission of information to and from the site, in part or in whole, does not create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between senders and/or recipients and Mulcahy LLP. Click to view our Privacy Policy and our Disclaimer.

Mulcahy LLP