Does the Bft franchise agreement require franchisees to consent to the jurisdiction of courts near the Franchisor's principal place of business?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- 16.6 Consent to Jurisdiction. Subject to the obligation to submit to binding arbitration under Section 16.4 above, Franchisor and Franchisee agree that all controversies, disputes, or claims between them or any Franchisor Parties and Franchisee Parties arising out of or related to this Agreement or any other agreement between a Franchisor Party and a Franchisee Party or their relationships with each other must be commenced exclusively in state or federal court closest to Franchisor's (or its successor's or assign's, as applicable) then-current principal place of business (currently, Irvine, California), and the Parties irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of those courts and waive any objection to either the jurisdiction of or venue in those courts.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 79–265)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, franchisees agree that any disputes or claims must be commenced exclusively in a state or federal court closest to Bft's principal place of business. The document specifies that the current principal place of business for Bft is in Irvine, California.
This means that a Bft franchisee, regardless of where their franchise is located, must travel to Irvine, California, to litigate any legal disputes with Bft. Franchisees consent to the jurisdiction of those courts and waive any objection to the jurisdiction or venue in those courts.
This clause is fairly standard in franchise agreements, as it allows the franchisor to manage legal issues in a location convenient for them. However, it can create a significant financial burden for franchisees who may need to incur travel and legal fees in a distant location.