National and regional restaurant chains

Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Franchises

Restaurant franchises exist in almost every state, city, and town in the U.S. Mulcahy LLP provides counsel and representation to a wide range of national and regional restaurant chains, wineries, early-stage restaurant ventures, packaged food companies, importers, distilleries, licensors, manufacturing companies, and franchisors.

As experienced franchise lawyers, Mulcahy LLP can help determine whether owning a Restaurant franchise is the right fit for you. We have the knowledge needed to help clients identify the risks involved in buying a franchise. We can also provide clients with comprehensive legal guidance throughout their business endeavor. When franchisees are ready to sell their business or want to get out of a franchise contract, we can facilitate the sale or initiate discussions with the franchiser.

Our clients include people interested in buying:

Casual Dining Establishments Franchises
Fast Food Chain Franchises
Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Franchises
Ice Cream Shop Franchises

Representative Transactions:

Corporate & Securities
Mergers & Acquisitions
Class Action Defense
Gift Cards and Prepaid Cards
Alcoholic Beverage Licensing and Regulatory Work
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Brand Licensing
Insurance Coverage
Franchising
Employment & Labor
Litigation

Restaurant franchises are a profitable and stable business. You will provide consumers with a convenient and sought-after service. If you interested in learning more about owning and operating a restaurant franchise, contact us to schedule a consultation.

SanSai – Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor Cases.
Mulcahy LLP represents the purchaser of assets from an assignment for the benefit of creditors against fraudulent transfer claims filed by several debtors in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Learn More >>>
Stuft Pizza v. Rai
(Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented a franchisor who sued four terminated franchisees for trademark infringement and related claims. The firm also defended the franchisees’ $3.5 million counterclaim for fraud and breach of contract.
Learn More >>>
Submarina v. S&D #4
(San Diego Superior Court) the firm successfully enforced the termination of a franchise and obtained preliminary and permanent injunctions on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee who had failed to pay royalties.
Learn More >>>
Submarina v. Sial
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of California) the firm obtained a TRO on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee for violation of the Lanham Act.
Learn More >>>
Philly Foods, Inc. (dba Philly's Best) v. Cheesesteaks of Southern California, Inc.
(AAA, Orange County, 2012), Mulcahy LLP recently secured a favorable award on behalf of its client, the franchisor, in an enforcement action against a franchisee for breach of the franchise agreement.
Learn More >>>
Dousette v. Red Brick Pizza
(Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm, representing a franchisor, successfully petitioned the court to grant a new trial following a trial handled by other counsel.
Learn More >>>
Gold, et al. v. Melt Franchising, LLC, et al.
(Los Angeles County Superior Court, June 2008 & California Court of Appeals, April 2010), fifteen persons and entities purporting to represent a nationwide class of franchisees of Melt Franchising filed a class action suit against Melt, alleging fraud and violations of state franchise laws.
Learn More >>>
KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.
(United States District Court, Central District of California, April 2009), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against a former franchisee for claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices, among others.
Learn More >>>
Melt Franchising , LLC v. PMI Enterprises, Inc.
Melt Franchising, a gelato italiano franchisor, terminated a Massachusetts franchisee for violating terms of the franchise agreement. Following the termination, Melt retained Mulcahy LLP, who immediately filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that the franchisee comply with the post-termination provisions of the franchise agreement.
Learn More >>>
Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc.
In Meyers v. Conehead Investments, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court) the firm represented a Cold Stone Creamery franchise and prevailed on a cutting edge question regarding the enforceability of an arbitration provision in a franchise agreement.
Learn More >>>
Gold, Et Al. V. Melt Franchising, Llc, Et Al
Mulcahy LLP obtains for franchisor an early dismissal of nationwide class action suit filed by fifteen disgruntled franchisees located throughout the country.
Learn More >>>
IAG v. SANDERS
“Mulcahy LLP took a very serious claim against us and completely turned the tables,” said It’s A Grind CEO Steve Shoeman. “We could not be happier with the result.”
Learn More >>>
Melt Franchising V. PMI Enterprises, Inc.
Mulcahy LLP obtains for franchisor-client a preliminary injunction and an order from the Court granting the franchisor management of the terminated franchisee’s store following its breach of the franchise agreement.
Learn More >>>
Mulcahy LLP Secures Arbitration Victory for Leading Franchisor
Mulcahy LLP, a leading antitrust and franchise litigation boutique in California, successfully litigated an arbitration proceeding against a franchisee on behalf of coffee house franchisor It’s A Grind. The firm secured dismissal of the franchisee’s antitrust and fraud claims, and an award of damages for the franchisor.
Learn More >>>
Burger King Avoids The Venue Restrictions Of The California Franchise Relations Act
The 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 did not bar the non-California forum selection clause in the parties’ contract.
Read More >>>
Recent Case Demonstrates Importance Behind Properly Educating Courts On California’s Franchise Laws
Recent Case Demonstrates Importance Behind Properly Educating Courts On California’s Franchise Laws
Read More >>>
Mustard Franchise Corporation V. Yek, Inc
A recent arbitration proceeding litigated by Mulcahy LLP demonstrates the value of proactive arbitration in helping a franchisor terminate a difficult franchisee. As a result of arbitration, the delicatessen franchisor was granted the right to terminate the franchisee’s franchise agreement and to obtain possession of the franchisee’s restaurant.
Learn More >>>
Does New NLRB Advice Memorandum Indicate That The Tide Has Turned For Joint Employer Liability In Franchising?
The Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board recently issued an Advice Memorandum finding that a franchisor was not liable as a “joint employer” for the alleged unfair labor practices of one if its franchisees.
Read More >>>
Frango Grille USA, Inc. v. Pepe’s Franchising Ltd., Business Franchise Guide (CCH) P 15,390 (July 21, 2014)
A district court sitting in California was recently asked to address the enforceability of an out-of-state forum selection clause in a franchise agreement in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013).
Read More >>>
California State Bar Franchise Law Committee - Case Report – September 2015
Fourth Circuit Refuses To Address Federal Preemption Of State Statute Limiting The Terms Of The Parties’ Agreement To Arbitrate
Read More >>>
Early Impact From California Appellate Court Opinion In The Domino's Pizza Case
As expected, the opinion in Domino’s Pizza now serves as a catalyst for copycat lawsuits by plaintiffs’ lawyers. I recently ran across a lawsuit by a former employee of a Jack In The Box franchisee against both Jack In The Box and the franchisee.
The Full Story >>>
Booster Juice cases before the American Arbitration Association
Mulcahy LLP attorneys recently tried to conclusion three separate arbitrations on behalf of former Booster Juice Regional Developers against franchisor Booster Juice LLP.
Learn More >>>