Does the Casiola Franchise Agreement require litigation to be conducted outside of the franchisee's state?
Casiola Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
ng: With respect to franchises governed by Minnesota law, we will comply with Minn. Stat. Sec. 80C.14, Subds. 3, 4 and 5, which require, except in certain specified cases, that you be given 90 days- notice of termination (with 60 days to cure) and 180 days-notice of non-renewal of the Agreement.
Casiola. Multi-State FDD April 25, 2024
- D. Item 17 "Renewal, Termination, Transfer and Dispute Resolution," Item 17 is supplemented by the addition of the following: Item 17 shall not provide for a prospective general release of claims against us that may be subject to the Minnesota Franchise Law. Minn. Rule 2860.4400D prohibits a franchisor from requiring a franchisee to assent to a general release.
- E. Minn. Stat. §80C.21 and Minn. Rule 2860.4400J prohibit us from requiring litigation to be conducted outside Minnesota. In addition, nothing in the Disclosure Document or Franchise Agreement can abrogate or reduce any of your rights as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or your rights to any procedure, forum or remedies provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction.
- F. No statement, questionnaire or acknowledgement signed or agreed to by a franchisee in connection with the commencement of the franchise relationship shall have the effect of: (i) waiting any claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or (ii) disclaiming reliance on any statement made by any franchisor, franchise seller, or other person acting on behalf of the franchisor. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–209)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to the 2024 Casiola Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement's stipulations regarding where litigation must occur vary by state. For instance, Minnesota franchisees are protected by Minn. Stat. §80C.21 and Minn. Rule 2860.4400J, which prevent Casiola from mandating that litigation be conducted outside of Minnesota. Similarly, the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act states that any provision designating jurisdiction and venue outside of Illinois is void, although arbitration may still occur outside of Illinois.
For North Dakota franchisees, Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is amended to state that "Covenants requiring North Dakota franchisees to consent to the jurisdiction of courts outside of North Dakota may not be enforceable in North Dakota," and that "for North Dakota franchisees, North Dakota law shall apply." Maryland law states that it is an unfair or deceptive practice to require a franchisee to waive its right to file a lawsuit in Maryland claiming a violation of the Maryland Franchise Law.
These state-specific amendments suggest that Casiola tailors its franchise agreement to comply with local franchise laws, meaning that the requirement for litigation to occur in a specific location depends on the franchisee's location. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the amendment specific to their state and consult with a legal professional to understand their rights and obligations regarding dispute resolution and venue.