Does a court exercising jurisdiction in considering an injunction eliminate the alternative dispute resolution requirements for a 1 800 Packouts franchise?
1_800_Packouts Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- c. To the extent that either of us seeks injunctive relief before the face-to-face meeting or mediation, the same may be applied to a court of competent jurisdiction. The court will hear only the application for injunctive relief, and the mere fact that the court exercised jurisdiction in considering the injunction will not serve to eliminate the alternative dispute resolution requirements of this Article. If the temporary injunction is granted, then the Party that made the application must begin the alternative dispute resolution process under this Article.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPT (FDD pages 67–238)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to 1 800 Packouts's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, alternative dispute resolution requirements are not eliminated even if a court exercises jurisdiction in considering an injunction. The FDD states that seeking injunctive relief in court does not remove the obligation to pursue alternative dispute resolution.
Specifically, if either 1 800 Packouts or the franchisee seeks injunctive relief through a court of competent jurisdiction before a face-to-face meeting or mediation, the court's involvement is limited to the application for injunctive relief. The document emphasizes that the court's exercise of jurisdiction for the injunction does not waive the alternative dispute resolution requirements outlined in the agreement.
Furthermore, if a temporary injunction is granted, the party who applied for it is then required to initiate the alternative dispute resolution process. This ensures that even with court intervention for urgent matters like injunctions, the standard procedures for resolving disputes through methods like mediation and arbitration remain in effect for 1 800 Packouts franchisees.