Mulcahy LLP’s ADR Practice

Your Trusted Arbitration and Business Dispute Lawyers

Name: Mulcahy LLP
Address: 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1950, Irvine, CA, 92614
Telephone: 949.252.9377
Price range: $$

Business disputes can arise unexpectedly. Sometimes a contract is violated because one party sees an economic advantage in doing so rather than honorably abiding by the contract obligation. When a party is not willing to provide agreed-upon services or products, or an unexpected business condition arises causing a contract breach, our contract and business dispute lawyers at Mulcahy LLP are able to aggressively pursue your case. Whether you seek damages or specific performance outcomes (forcing a party to fulfill its promise) for the breach, our team of seasoned litigators and trial lawyers is ready to help.

We have extensive experience in commercial arbitration matters, representing manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, franchisees, franchisors, individuals, and associations in a wide array of disputes stemming from trade, investments, and other commercial contexts.

Business Dispute Lawyers With Experience

We have decades of experience arbitrating and litigating disputes in many economic sectors and industries, including:

Practice Focus

In our practice, we focus particularly on trademark infringement, intellectual property licensing, franchise and distribution, theft of trade secrets, antitrust, and unfair competition. Our contract dispute attorneys are here to help.

We handle a wide range of commercial arbitration cases, including:

Advising on best practices and strategy in structuring dispute resolution processes
Drafting arbitration agreements
Representing clients in disputes
Going to court to confirm and enforce arbitral awards

Contact a Knowledgeable Contract Dispute Attorney

To setup a consultation about your arbitration and alternative dispute resolution needs, give us a call today at 949.252.9377 or fill out our contact form and send us a message.

Can Franchisors Recover Their Fees for Compelling Abritration?
California Courts Appear To Answer This Question In The Negative. Over the summer, the California Second District Court of Appeal (in Roberts v. Packard, Packard & Johnson) and the California First District Court of Appeal rejected requests for attorney’s fees...
Read More >>>
Does Arbitration Make Sense For Franchisors? A Litigator’s Perspective
Why do franchisors and their attorneys treat arbitration provisions as a one-size-fits-all addition to franchise agreements?
read more >>>
Dispute Resolution: Protecting the Franchisor
Keep your brand out of costly lawsuits. Despite the best intentions and bona fide efforts of reasonable clients, not every lawsuit is avoidable. Certainly not in these litigious times. Franchisors must be prepared to defend their companies wisely, tenaciously, and efficiently.
Read More >>>
Franchisors Beware: Ninth Circuit Case Gets Tested
In April 2007, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge examined the reasoning in the Ninth Circuit’s 2006 opinion in Nagrampa v. MailCoups. Cold Stone confirms that California courts will be examining alternative dispute resolution clauses in franchise agreements more closely than in other states.
Read More >>>
Nagrampa Sets the Standard for California Arbitration Agreements in Franchise Contracts
In Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc. the Ninth Circuit considered a challenge by a franchisee to the enforceability of the arbitration provision contained in her franchise agreement. To the surprise of many, the court agreed with the franchisee and voided the entire provision as “unconscionable.”
Read 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 >>>
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 >>>
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 >>>
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 >>>
Shaw v. Iowa Grain Co., Kanz v. U.S. Futures and First Options Co., and Sussman v. Refco, Inc.
(National Futures Association, Chicago) the firm arbitrated claims brought before the NFA alleging unauthorized trading, failure to liquidate open positions, and failure to supervise broker activity in customer accounts.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Lyle Hayman et. al.
(AAA, Orange County, California and United States District Court, Central District of California, September 2009), Mulcahy LLP was retained to file a demand for arbitration against defendants, former franchisees, as a result of their operation of a competing window covering business in violation of their 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 >>>
Using The Doctrine Of Direct Benefits Estoppel To Enforce An Arbitration Agreement Against A Non-Signatory To A Franchise Agreement.
In Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21059 (November 3, 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was asked to review a district court’s finding that a non-signatory wife was not bound by an arbitration provision in the franchise agreement signed by her husband.
Read More >>>
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), petition for cert. filed, No. 14-341 (September 22, 2014)
The United States Supreme Court has recently been asked to again weigh in on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a state law restricting the enforcement of terms in an arbitration agreement.
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 >>>
Does Michigan Law Provide A Blueprint For California To Revise Its Franchise Relations Act To Avoid Out-Of-State Arbitration Forums?
Section 20040.5 of the California Franchise Relations Act was enacted by the California legislature to keep disputes involving California franchisees in the State by voiding out-of-state forum selection clauses in franchise agreements. This statutory contractual limitation reflects California’s strong public policy to protect in-state franchisees from the expense, inconvenience, and possible prejudice of having to litigate in a non-California venue.
Read More >>>
Excessive Arbitration Fees Not Enough To Allow Franchisee To Avoid Arbitration
Last 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.
Read More >>>
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 >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
Eagle Rider v. Eagle Rider Harley Rental of San Antonio
(AAA, Los Angeles) the firm defended against a franchisee’s claim that his franchise was wrongfully terminated. The firm obtained a judgment in favor of the franchisor after a week-long arbitration hearing.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
Gregor v. Pacific Brokerage Services, Toro v. Bosworth, ...
The firm arbitrated claims brought before the NASD alleging registration, fiduciary duty, and disclosure violations, among other claims, in connection with the offering and sale of financial products.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>
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.
Learn More >>>