What rules govern the arbitration process for Beyond Juicery Eatery franchise disputes?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
on 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.
-
- To the extent this Addendum shall be deemed to be inconsistent with any terms or conditions of said Franchise Agreement or exhibits or attachments thereto, the terms of this Addendum shall govern.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 60–337)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 FDD, the rules governing the arbitration process for Beyond Juicery Eatery franchise disputes are subject to certain state-specific laws that may modify the standard agreement. For instance, in California, Section 19 of the Area Development Agreement requires binding arbitration at a specified forum, with costs borne by the non-prevailing party. However, California law may impact the enforceability of the forum location. Similarly, for franchisees in Indiana, Section 23.02 of the Franchise Agreement is amended to require that arbitration occur at a mutually agreed-upon location.
In Maryland, Section 23.02 mandates that litigation or arbitration be conducted in the state where Beyond Juicery Eatery's principal place of business is located, but this does not limit a franchisee's right to bring a suit in Maryland under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Illinois also stipulates that while a franchise agreement may allow arbitration outside of Illinois, any provision designating jurisdiction and venue outside of Illinois is void. These stipulations highlight the importance of consulting legal counsel to understand how local laws affect the arbitration process.
These state-specific addenda demonstrate that the arbitration process for Beyond Juicery Eatery can vary significantly depending on the franchisee's location. While the standard agreement dictates certain terms, state laws may override or modify these provisions to protect franchisees' rights. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the addenda applicable to their state and seek legal advice to fully understand their rights and obligations regarding arbitration.