Can Beyond Juicery Eatery require litigation to be conducted outside of Michigan?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
ise Relations Act provides you rights concerning termination or non-renewal of the Franchise Agreement, which may supersede provisions in the Franchise Agreement, specifically Sections 13 and 16.
- Section 15.01, which terminates the Franchise Agreement upon your bankruptcy, may not be enforceable under federal bankruptcy law (11 USC Section 101, et. seq).
- Section 16.05 contains a covenant not to compete that extends beyond the expiration or termination of the Agreement; this covenant may not be enforceable under California Law.
- The Franchise Agreement requires litigation to be conducted in a court located outside of the State of California. This provision might not be enforceable for any cause of Action arising under California law.
- The Franchise Agreement requires application of the laws of a state other than California. This provision might not be enforceable under California law.
- Section 23 requires binding arbitration. The arbitration will occur at the forum indicated in Section 23.02, with the costs being borne by the non-prevailing party. Prospective Franchise Owners are encouraged to consult legal counsel to determine the applicability of California and federal laws (such as Business and Professions Code Section 20040.5, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281, and the Federal Arbitration Act) to any provisions of the Franchise Agreement restricting venue to a forum outside of the State of California.
-
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 60–337)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Beyond Juicery Eatery's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement generally requires litigation to occur outside of California. However, this requirement might not be enforceable for legal actions arising under California law. This means that if a franchisee in California has a dispute governed by California law, they may be able to litigate the matter in California, regardless of what the franchise agreement states. Similarly, the franchise agreement mandates the application of laws from a state other than California, but this provision may also be unenforceable under California law. Prospective franchisees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to determine the applicability of California and federal laws regarding venue restrictions.
For franchisees in Indiana, the FDD includes an addendum that modifies the franchise agreement. Specifically, Section 23.02 is amended to allow franchisees to start litigation in Indiana for any cause of action under Indiana law. Additionally, the addendum states that arbitration between Beyond Juicery Eatery and the franchisee will be conducted at a mutually agreed-upon location. This suggests a more flexible approach to dispute resolution for Indiana franchisees.
For franchisees in Maryland, the franchise agreement requires litigation or arbitration to be conducted in the state where Beyond Juicery Eatery's principal place of business is located. However, this requirement does not limit the rights franchisees may have under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law to bring a suit in Maryland. Therefore, while the agreement may prefer litigation elsewhere, Maryland franchisees retain the right to litigate in their home state under certain conditions.
In summary, Beyond Juicery Eatery's ability to enforce out-of-state litigation clauses depends on the franchisee's location and the specific laws governing the dispute. Franchisees in California, Indiana, and Maryland have specific protections or amendments that may allow them to litigate or arbitrate within their own state, despite the general terms of the franchise agreement. It is important for prospective franchisees to consult with legal counsel to understand their rights and obligations regarding dispute resolution.