LEGAL GUIDE
Written by attorney Kevin Albert Adams

NAVIGATING THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW

This article explores a private right of action under the CFIL, including, the underlying violations that trigger these sections, the elements a franchisee must show to prevail on a claim under these sections, and the applicable limitations periods in which to bring such a claim.

Additional resources provided by the author

Cal. Corp. Code § 31001. Cal. Corp. Code § 31302. Cal. Corp. Code § 31300. Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108 (1988). See also Samica Enterprises LLC v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 460 Fed.Appx. 664, 665 (“Reasonable reliance is required under [Section 31300].). Dollar Systems, Inc. v. Avcar Leasing (C.D. Cal. 1987) 673 F. Supp. 1493, 1503 (“[W]illful” is defined as “an act that is committed knowingly and intentionally,” and does not require a showing of “an intent to violate the law, an evil motive, or a purpose to gain undue advantage.”). Cal. Corp. Code § 31300 (emphasis added). Ca. Civ. Code § 1692. 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8388. DT Woodard, Inc. v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2007, No. B194599) 2007 WL 3018861, *23 (“If this were not the case, a ‘willful’ statutory violation would give the plaintiff the

Free Q&A with lawyers in your area

Can’t find what you’re looking for?


Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer