Franchise Law

Gorman & Miller has substantial expertise in the handling of franchise law matters on behalf of both franchisors and franchisees.

John C. Gorman is a member of the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers and has been actively involved in franchising law since 1979.  He is a member of the American Bar Association's Forum on Franchising, Antitrust, and Litigation Sections.

Mr. Gorman has successfully handled numerous lawsuits involving franchisor-franchisees disputes, including dealer terminations, trademark rights, misrepresentation, violation of state disclosure and registration statutes, encroachment, and unfair competition/antitrust issues.

Representative Matters:

Represented the operator of a hotel management company in the acquisition and sale of multiple properties throughout the United States.

Represented the buyer of multiple existing units of a major fast food franchisor.

Represented a multi-national franchisor in connection with leasing of restaurant locations.

Assisted an existing franchisee of a major national chain with franchise renewal.

Asssited prospective purchasers of franchises with regard to review of operative franchise documents.

Representative Cases:

Represented a national franchisor in a series of federal trademark infringement actions that resulted in permanent injunctions that enjoined continuing misuse of the franchisor's registered service mark.

Represented a former franchisee in a frequently cited Ninth Circuit decision that invalidated a  provision in the parties' franchise agreement that purported to require resolution of disputes by way of arbitration in Oklahoma.  Laxmi Investments, LLC v. Golf USA, Inc., 193 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1999).

Represented gas station operators in a lawsuit against a major oil company that resulted in a sizeable judgment for overcharging of petroleum products.   Rossi v. Mobil Oil Corp., 710 F.2d 821 (TECA 1983).

Represented three franchised stores against a franchisor for violating the registration and material misrepresentation provisions of the California Franchise Investment Law and for breach of contract.  The franchisees received a combined settlement in excess of $1.5 million, including full recovery of their attorneys' fees and costs.

Represented the operators of a motel who successfully argued that a national motel chain is a "franchise" subject to the requirements of California's franchise laws and that, notwithstanding its membership contract, the motel chain was obligated under the provisions of the California Franchise Relations Act to resolve any disputes between itself and its franchisees in California rather than its home state of Arizona.  Mahroom v. Best Western International, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56006 (2007).