Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc.

18 Citing cases

  1. National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corp.

    715 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (S.D. Fla. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Noting the uniformity among franchise agreements and lack of ambiguity of the only challenged provision, the opportunity to expand to a class certification for all franchisees, the need to reference only to the franchisor's internal documents and data

    Under Florida law, every contract includes an implied duty of good faith. Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities. Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2002). With respect to BKC's contractual duty of good faith, Section 5 of the Agreement states that BKC can only make changes and additions to the BKC Operating system "which BKC in the good faith exercise of its judgment believes to be desirable and reasonably necessary. . . ."

  2. In re Worldcom, Inc.

    Case No. 02-13533 (AJG), (Jointly Administered) (Confirmed) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2005)

    Nonetheless, the limit placed on a party's discretion "is not great" under Florida law. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 2001); Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ( quoting Ford). No violation of the duty of good faith occurs "unless no reasonable party . . . would have made the same discretionary decision."

  3. Carvel Corp. v. Noonan

    350 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that a jury could conclude that defendant violated an independent duty in tort "by willfully causing damage to [franchisees'] prospective business relationships," where the evidence demonstrated that defendant instituted coupon program for its gain, "at the cost of its franchisees," "with full knowledge that doing so would damage [the franchisees'] relationships with their customers"

    Although these courts rarely find that the franchisee has proven its case, they do not hold the franchisor excluded from tort liability simply by virtue of the franchise contract. See, e.g., Interim Health Care of Northern Illinois, Inc. v. Interim Health Care, Inc., 225 F.3d 876, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2000) (applying Illinois law) (tort actionable, but not proven); Brock v. Baskin Robbins, USA, Co., No. 5:99-CV-274, 2003 WL 21309428, at *6-*7 (E.D.Tex. Jan.17, 2003) (same); Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1279-80 (S.D.Fla. 2002) (same); Dunkin' Donuts v. Shree Dev Donut LLC, 152 F.Supp.2d 675, 678-79 (E.D.Pa. 2002) (tort counterclaim survived summary judgment); Harford Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc., No. Civ. L-98-3668, 2001 WL 403473, at *4-*5 (D.Md. April 10, 2001) (tort actionable, but not proven); Clark v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 916 F.Supp. 586, 594-95 (E.D.La. 1996). In other states, the apparent minority, courts have added to tortious interference claims the requirement that the tortfeasor be a "third party," or a "stranger," to the interrupted economic relationship.

  4. Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

    No. 17-CV-24284-COOKE (S.D. Fla. Jul. 12, 2022)

    Giglio, 2012 WL 4477504, at *2 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1280-81 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (Gold, J.); see also ABCO Premium Fin. LLC v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. 11-23020-CIV, 2012 WL 3278628, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2012)

  5. Reed v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

    20-cv-24979-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sep. 22, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Consequently, “affidavits and declarations [attached to a reply brief] may contain facts not previously mentioned in the” underlying motion, “as long as the facts rebut elements of the opposition memorandum and do not raise wholly new factual issues.” Giglio Sub S. N.C. , 2012 WL 4477504 at *2 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1280-81 (S.D. Fla. 2001)). The Lock Declaration fails to rebut the evidence Plaintiffs cite in their opposition, as well as the core of Plaintiffs' opposition-that the forum-selection clause in the Ticket Contract governs.

  6. Wright v. GreenSky, Inc.

    Case No. 20-cv-62441-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Jun. 14, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Thus, while raising new arguments on reply is generally inappropriate, reply evidence “may contain facts not previously mentioned in the opening brief, as long as the facts rebut elements of the opposition memorandum and do not raise wholly new factual issues.” GiglioSub s.n.c., 2012 WL 4477504, at *2 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1280-81 (S.D. Fla. 2002)); see also ABCO Premium Fin. LLC v. Am. Int'l Grp., No. 11-23020-CIV, 2012 WL 3278628, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2012) (“While the ‘raising of new issues and submission of new facts in reply brief is improper,' a court has the discretion to consider the additional exhibits despite this ‘procedural shortcoming.'” (citation omitted)), aff'd, 518 Fed.Appx. 601 (11th Cir. 2013); Intra-Lock Int'l, Inc. v. Choukroun, No. 14-cv-80930, 2015 WL 1268278, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2015). Upon review of parties' briefing and the record evidence, the Court is unpersuaded that the challenged exhibits are improper attempts to raise new factual issues on reply.

  7. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Univ. of Miami

    Civil Action No. 19-23131-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2021)

    However, there is "'[a] significant difference ... between new arguments and evidence, on the one hand, and rebuttal arguments and evidence, on the other' when they are raised in reply briefs." Id. (quoting Giglio Sub S.N.C. v. Carnival Corp., No. 12-21680-CIV, 2012 WL 4477504, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2012) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1280-81 (S.D. Fla. 2001))). Although some of the arguments in the University's reply overlap with its motion for summary judgment, the reply is largely limited to addressing the arguments and reliance on evidence in the Plaintiff's response in opposition.

  8. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Miami

    Civil Action 19-23131-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2021)

    However, there is “‘[a] significant difference ... between new arguments and evidence, on the one hand, and rebuttal arguments and evidence, on the other' when they are raised in reply briefs.” Id. (quoting Giglio Sub S. N.C. v. Carnival Corp., No. 12-21680-CIV, 2012 WL 4477504, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2012) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1280-81 (S.D. Fla. 2001))). Although some of the arguments in the University's reply overlap with its motion for summary judgment, the reply is largely limited to addressing the arguments and reliance on evidence in the Plaintiff's response in opposition.

  9. Tim Hortons USA, Inc. v. Singh

    CASE NO. 16-23041-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Accordingly, Defendants' failure to timely pay constituted a material breach. See, e.g., Burger KingCorp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2002), aff'd sub nom. 103 F. App'x 666 (11th Cir. 2004) (granting summary judgment in favor of franchisor for breach of contract where franchisee failed to pay royalties, advertising payments, and property taxes after receiving default notice). Defendants rely on Ron Matusalem & Matusa of Florida, Inc. v. Ron Matusalem, Inc., 872 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1989) and claim that under Restatement of Contracts § 241, their failure to pay is not material.

  10. Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

    145 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (S.D. Fla. 2015)   Cited 38 times
    Finding that in order for a borrower to avail himself of Regulation X's protections, the borrower's application must be received by the servicer after the effective date of the regulation

    While raising new arguments on reply is generally inappropriate, reply evidence “may contain facts not previously mentioned in the opening brief, as long as the facts rebut elements of the opposition memorandum and do not raise wholly new factual issues.” Giglio, 2012 WL 4477504, at *2 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1280–81 (S.D.Fla.2002) ); see alsoABCO Premium Fin. LLC v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. 11–23020–CIV, 2012 WL 3278628, at *4 (S.D.Fla. Aug. 9, 2012) aff'd , 518 Fed.Appx. 601 (11th Cir.2013) (“While the raising of new issues and submission of new facts in reply brief is improper, a court has the discretion to consider the additional exhibits despite this procedural shortcoming.”