Does a court's exercise of jurisdiction in considering an injunction eliminate the alternative dispute resolution requirements for Card My Yard?
Card_My_Yard 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 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 84–259)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Card My Yard's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, seeking injunctive relief through a court does not eliminate the requirement for alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, if either Card My Yard or the franchisee seeks injunctive relief before a face-to-face meeting or mediation, they can apply to a court of competent jurisdiction. The court's involvement is limited to the application for injunctive relief.
The FDD states explicitly that the court's exercise of jurisdiction in considering the injunction does not eliminate the alternative dispute resolution requirements outlined in the agreement. If a temporary injunction is granted, the party that applied for it must then begin the alternative dispute resolution process.
This means that even if a franchisee or Card My Yard initially seeks an injunction through the court system, they are still obligated to participate in alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation or arbitration to resolve the underlying dispute. This dual process ensures immediate protective measures can be sought through the courts while still encouraging a less adversarial resolution through alternative methods.