Which state's courts have jurisdiction over legal proceedings arising out of the Casiola Franchise Agreement?

document executed in connection with the franchise.

Each provision of this amendment shall be effective only to the extent, with respect to such provision, that the jurisdictional requirements of North Dakota Law are met independently without reference to this amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this North Dakota amendment to Casiola Franchise LLC Franchise Agreement on the same date as the Franchise Agreement was executed.

WASHINGTON FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

Amendments to the Casiola Franchise Agreement:

In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.

RCW 19.100.180 may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions which may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise.

In any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the arbitration or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee may bring an action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.

A release or waiver of rights executed by a franchisee may not include rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act or any rule or order thereunder except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel. Provisions such as those which unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Act, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.

Transfer fees are collectable to the extent that they reflect the franchisor's reasonable estimated or actual costs in effecting a transfer.

Pursuant to RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an employee, including an employee of a franchisee, unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed $100,000 per year (an amount that will be adjusted annually for inflation). In addition, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor of a franchisee under RCW 49.62.030 unless the independent contractor's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed $250,000 per year (an amount that will be adjusted annually for inflation). As a result, any provisions contained in the franchise agreement or elsewhere that conflict with these limitations are void and unenforceable in Washington.

Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–209)