Attorney Robert S. Boulter's Legal Cases

Franchising

Husain v. McDonald's Corp., 205 Cal. App. 4th 860, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 370 (2012)

Apr 30, 2012

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

McDonald's sought to terminate certain franchises alleging they had expired. Representing the franchisee, Robert Boulter (while with his former firm) successfully urged the trial court to stay the ter ... mination pending a motion for preliminary injunction. The franchisees ultimately prevailed on the full preliminary injunction motion and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected McDonald's argument that the franchise agreement was a personal service contract, which could not be subject to specific performance.

Franchising

Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp. 2010 WL 3584060 (9th Cir. 2010)

Jan 01, 2010

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. won a significant victory for franchisees before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the arbitratio ... n clause was unenforceable and that California law applied despite a Texas choice of law provision of the agreement. In addition, the court adopted the Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. argument that there is no requirement that a party challenge an arbitration clause in the party’s complaint -- a challenge presented for the first time in an opposition to a motion to compel can and should be ruled upon by a court of law.

Franchising

Prudence Corp. v. Shred-It America, Inc. 2010 WL 582597 (9th Cir. 2010)

Jan 01, 2010

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented a franchisee in trial and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed an order renewing a franchise on the original terms where the fran ... chisor sought to delay renewal and take advantage of the delay to negotiate better terms. The Court also upheld a substantial award of attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100,000.

Franchising

McGuire v. CoolBrands Smoothies Franchise, LLC 2007 WL 2381545 (2007

Jan 01, 2007

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented a franchisee in the defense of a franchisor’s motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement. The trial court fo ... und that the arbitration clause was unenforceable and that California law applied despite a New York choice of law provision of the agreement. The franchisor appealed and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in full.

Franchising

Independent Ass'n of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court 133 Cal.App.4th 396, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 659 (2005),

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Reversal On Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter L.L.P. successfully represented franchisees in the defense of a franchisor’s motion to enforce an unconscionable an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement. The Court of Appeal h ... eld that such a clause could not be used to force franchisees to litigate their claims on an individual basis as opposed to group actions and/or class actions. The Court of Appeal also and struck down provisions improperly limiting damages and statutes of limitations.

Employment and labor

Ramsdell v. Lenscrafters, Inc., 135 Fed. Appx. 130 (9th Cir. 2005)

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter LLP successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals that a prohibition of class action lawsuits in employment arbitration agreements was unconscionable.

Employment and labor

Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Lagarias & Boulter litigated an important employee rights issue before the California Supreme Court. Specifically, the case addressed whether officers, directors, and shareholders of corporate employer ... s could be liable for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. Although the court rejected such liability on the state of the law, Justice Moreno urged the legislature to extend such liability: “The abuse of the corporate form to avoid paying overtime wages is well documented….The exploitation of such vulnerable workers by unscrupulous individuals hiding behind the corporate form takes place against a backdrop of diminished public resources for the enforcement of the state's labor laws….. the federal equivalent of section 1194 contained in the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has long given workers this right under a definition of "employer" that includes [corporate officers]… Taking a leaf from federal law, the Legislature could similarly authorize section 1194 actions against such individuals. I urge the Legislature to do so.”

Robert S. Boulter's Legal Cases (7)

Husain v. McDonald's Corp., 205 Cal. App. 4th 860, 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 370 (2012)

Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp. 2010 WL 3584060 (9th Cir. 2010)

Prudence Corp. v. Shred-It America, Inc. 2010 WL 582597 (9th Cir. 2010)

McGuire v. CoolBrands Smoothies Franchise, LLC 2007 WL 2381545 (2007

Independent Ass'n of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court 133 Cal.App.4th 396, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 659 (2005),

Ramsdell v. Lenscrafters, Inc., 135 Fed. Appx. 130 (9th Cir. 2005)

Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)