Where is the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for legal proceedings related to the Marble Slab Creamery agreement?
Marble_Slab_Creamery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
-
- GOVERNING LAW.
The existence, validity and construction of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the substantive laws of the State of California.
With respect to any claims concerning this Agreement, each party agrees: (i) to submit to the exclusive general jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of California or the federal courts that are located in Los Angeles, California; (ii) that any such action or proceeding may be brought in such courts; and (iii) to waive any objection that it may have to the venue of any such action or proceeding in any such court or that such action or proceeding was brought in an inconvenient court and agrees not to plead or claim the same.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPT (FDD pages 101–346)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Marble Slab Creamery Franchise Disclosure Document, the agreement specifies that the courts of the State of California, or the federal courts located in Los Angeles, California, have exclusive general jurisdiction for any claims concerning the agreement. This means that any lawsuit against Marble Slab Creamery related to the franchise agreement must be filed in one of these courts. Franchisees are agreeing to this as part of the franchise agreement.
Furthermore, the document states that both parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of these courts and that any action or proceeding may be brought in these courts. The franchisee also waives any objection to the venue of these courts, agreeing not to claim that the court is inconvenient. This is a standard clause in franchise agreements to ensure predictability and reduce the franchisor's legal costs by concentrating litigation in a single location.
However, there are addenda for specific states that may modify this clause. For instance, the addendum for Illinois states that any provision in the Multi-Unit Restaurant Agreement that designates jurisdiction or venue in a forum outside of the State of Illinois is void under section 4 of the current Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, although the Multi-Unit Restaurant Agreement may provide for arbitration in a forum outside of the State of Illinois. Similarly, the Rhode Island addendum states that any provision restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside the state or requiring the application of the laws of another state is void with respect to a claim otherwise enforceable under the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act. The addendum for Maryland states that any litigation involving claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Law that are not subject to arbitration may be brought in Federal District Court in Maryland.
Prospective franchisees should carefully review the governing law and dispute resolution sections of the franchise agreement and any state-specific addenda to understand their rights and obligations regarding legal proceedings. It is advisable to consult with an attorney to fully understand the implications of these clauses, especially concerning the designated jurisdiction and venue, as these can significantly impact the cost and convenience of resolving disputes.