GARRITY-WEISS, P.A. is a law firm based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that prides itself in implementing a non-traditional approach in its representation of clients. Gone are the barriers that often exist between clients and their attorney. We firmly believe in approaching representation as an attorney-client team vested in the outcome of litigation. Through this philosophical shift our firm of lawyers seeks to develop a family of clients who view the firm as an extension of their internal decision making process.
GARRITY-WEISS, P.A is a Florida based Professional Association that strives to bring insight and innovation to every case it undertakes. Formed in 2008, the Firm provides clients with creative yet sound legal advice while integrating extensive entrepreneurial and industry-specific experience. The practice is concentrated in the areas of Complex Commercial Litigation, Real Property Litigation, Casualty Insurance Practice, Franchise Systems and Franchise Litigation.
Franchise Systems and Franchise Litigation - Our franchise attorneys can help you with all your franchise law issues. The broad range and depth of experience possessed by each member of this firm and its staff of corporate lawyers, provides the basis for a complete variety of legal services for both new and developing franchise organizations and businesses in Florida and across the US. Our lawyers focus on assisting franchisors in the development of all aspects of franchise law. Assistance extends from the structuring of business entities to international expansion of a franchise. Our corporate lawyers work regularly and effectively with various government agencies and US embassies around the world. We strive to maximize the benefits available to franchisors through federal trade programs and commerce support.
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney - Florida Franchise Lawyer- Florida Franchise Attorney - Franchise Registration - Intellectual Property - Real Property Litigation - Attorney - lawyer - Complex Commercial Litigation - Construction litigation
For access to current information regarding newsworthy franchise litigation and other trending legal issues, follow GARRITY-WEISS, P.A. on Facebook - Twitter - blogger - Digg .
Franchise Lawyer | Franchise Attorney | Florida Franchise Attorney | Florida Franchise Lawyer | Franchise Registration | Complex Commercial Litigation | Real Property Litigation | Law Firm
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney - Florida Franchise Lawyer- Florida Franchise Attorney - Franchise Registration - Intellectual Property - Real Property Litigation - Attorney - lawyer - Complex Commercial Litigation - Construction litigation
Franchise Lawyer - GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Waiting to go home
By Donna Gehrke-White
Special to The Miami Herald
Fabienne “Faye” Adam thought she smelled burnt toast. Actually, it was a fire that had erupted in her part of the Century Village condo building in Deerfield Beach.
Dressed in a nightgown, she rushed out through the smoke that night in July 2005.
Adam, 80, has not lived in her cozy apartment since.
She and owners of eight other units in the village’s Ventnor “B” building were forced out of their damaged homes and have not been able to live in them since. Along the way there have been lawsuits, hearings, a bankrupt insurance company, Hurricane Wilma and building code revisions — but no completed renovation.
Now, nearly six years later, the damaged units are still considered “unsafe structures” and uninhabitable, with yellow tape warning people to stay away. Two elderly owners have died.
“You lose everything – I don’t know where to begin,’’ said Adam, who is president of the building’s condo association . “It’s a hole that has no bottom … All of a sudden everything is gone.’’
“I do not know what it has taken so long,’’ said Daniel Britto, an attorney who represents an insurance brokerage company, Plastridge Agency, one of the defendants named in a lawsuit by the burned-out owners. The agency’s executives have “done as much as they could” to resolve the longstanding issue, said Britto, who added that the court cases — and even appeals — should have been settled by now.
Joseph D. Garrity, attorney for the association, agrees. But, he said, the legal issues remain far from resolved.
The plight of the Ventnor “B” owners is a lesson for all condo owners: Make sure you are familiar with your building’s insurance and that you are properly insured, said Jan Bergemann, a statewide grassroots activist who runs Cyber Citizens for Justice. In one case, owners found out after a fire that their condo association hadn’t taken out insurance. “They are the ones who are suffering,’’ he said.
Read more straight from The Miami Herald at: Franchise Attorney Blog
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Friday, April 8, 2011
Franchisees Get Feisty
By Nicole Harris in Atlanta and Mike France in New York
They're suing franchisers to gain power--and winning
When Meineke Discount Muffler Shops Inc. used to hit up franchisee Mark J. Zuckerman for 10% of his sales to help pay for marketing, he expected to see top-notch ads. But in 1990, the Trumbull (Conn.) resident started noticing that newspaper advertising was waning and TV spots were appearing after midnight. Zuckerman and 19 other franchisees began asking questions. To their shock, they eventually discovered that the Charlotte (N.C.) franchiser (a division of British-based GKN PLC) had been pocketing 15% of the communal ad funds--while Zuckerman's group thought it was taking only 2%. From 1986 to 1996, Meineke's take totaled $17 million.
In 1993, the franchisees sued for this and other acts of alleged bad faith. And on Dec. 18, a jury in federal district court in North Carolina awarded all of the chain's franchisees $347 million--the biggest verdict in the history of franchising. The penalty could ultimately hit $741 million, if the company is also found guilty of violating North Carolina trade practices law. Meineke says that its actions were authorized by the company's franchising contracts and that it will appeal.
The suit has thrown a scare into the massive franchising industry, which accounts for nearly $1 trillion in annual sales. Applying a groundbreaking legal standard to Meineke, Judge Robert D. Potter said that the company had a fiduciary duty to ensure that franchisees' funds were properly managed. If more judges were to rule along the same lines, franchisers warn they would be reduced to little more than babysitters for their franchisees. ''You wouldn't be in business for yourself. You would essentially be in business for the franchisee,'' grumbles Joyce G. Mazero, a Dallas attorney representing franchisers..........
Read More on : Franchise Attorney Blog
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney GARRITY-WEISS, P.AShould a Franchise Holder Be Allowed to Continue Operating While a Termination Suit Is Pending?
BY MITCHELL J. KASSOFF
Should a court issue an injunction ordering a fran-chisor to allow a franchisee to continue to operate his franchise pending conclusion of trial on charges that a franchise was improperly terminated? The position taken here is that in many cases such relief should be granted.
The primary argument of the franchisee will be that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. A secondary argument is that during this process a franchisor will earn money from the franchise fees paid by a franchisee, thereby benefiting from this relationship.
The facts in such cases are usually quite simple. A franchisor will have terminated a franchise due to an al¬leged breach of the franchise agreement. The franchisee will argue that either (a) the breach of the franchise agreement did not exist or (b) it was de minimis and not worthy of the drastic step of terminating a franchise. In some cases, a franchisee will allege that it has been dis¬criminated against.
The franchisee will state that its request is simply that the court order a franchisor to maintain the status quo ante while this matter is litigated. The franchisee will continue in that if the injunctions are not granted, mon¬etary damages will not suffice and it will be impossible to put a franchisee back in its former position because it will be impossible to know how much a franchisee would have made or would have sold at their fran-chises.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a court must weigh “the relative harms to the parties” when deciding if an injunction should be issued.1
In a case in the Eastern District of New York,2 the plaintiff dealer filed a motion for a preliminary injunc¬tion enjoining the defendant distributor from terminat¬ing its dealership until the dealer’s suit against the dis¬tributor was concluded. The court concluded that the dealer made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm if his business were closed.
In a case in the Southern District of New York,3 plain¬tiffs brought an order to show cause why the defendant should not be preliminarily enjoined from terminating their carrier agreements and from committing other acts of harassment. The court held:
If the defendant does in fact terminate the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. They will have lost their business and their customers and should they eventually succeed on the merits of this case, it may be impossible to reestablish the businesses as going con¬cerns. Such a victory would, indeed, be pyrrhic.
That the court has the power to issue an injunction when the likelihood that the franchise will be termi¬nated is quite clear. “Many courts have held that defen¬dants who are or may be guilty of anticompetitive prac¬tices should not be permitted to terminate franchises, leases or sales contracts when such terminations would effectuate those practices.” This is true even though “the plaintiff had violated the terms of the franchise or sales agreement and had given [the] defendant a contractual basis for termination.”4
In a case in the Eastern District of New York,5 a fran¬chisee violated its franchise agreement on several occa¬sions. Finally, the franchisor threatened to terminate the franchise agreement. The franchisee filed a complaint in state court seeking a temporary restraining order pro¬hibiting the franchisor from removing the franchisee from the franchisor’s reservation system. The tempo¬rary restraining order was granted and the defendant removed the case to the Eastern District, where the court held:
The primary argument of the franchisee will be that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. A secondary argument is that during this process a franchisor will earn money from the franchise fees paid by a franchisee, thereby benefiting from this relationship.
The facts in such cases are usually quite simple. A franchisor will have terminated a franchise due to an al¬leged breach of the franchise agreement. The franchisee will argue that either (a) the breach of the franchise agreement did not exist or (b) it was de minimis and not worthy of the drastic step of terminating a franchise. In some cases, a franchisee will allege that it has been dis¬criminated against.
The franchisee will state that its request is simply that the court order a franchisor to maintain the status quo ante while this matter is litigated. The franchisee will continue in that if the injunctions are not granted, mon¬etary damages will not suffice and it will be impossible to put a franchisee back in its former position because it will be impossible to know how much a franchisee would have made or would have sold at their fran-chises.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a court must weigh “the relative harms to the parties” when deciding if an injunction should be issued.1
In a case in the Eastern District of New York,2 the plaintiff dealer filed a motion for a preliminary injunc¬tion enjoining the defendant distributor from terminat¬ing its dealership until the dealer’s suit against the dis¬tributor was concluded. The court concluded that the dealer made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm if his business were closed.
In a case in the Southern District of New York,3 plain¬tiffs brought an order to show cause why the defendant should not be preliminarily enjoined from terminating their carrier agreements and from committing other acts of harassment. The court held:
If the defendant does in fact terminate the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. They will have lost their business and their customers and should they eventually succeed on the merits of this case, it may be impossible to reestablish the businesses as going con¬cerns. Such a victory would, indeed, be pyrrhic.
That the court has the power to issue an injunction when the likelihood that the franchise will be termi¬nated is quite clear. “Many courts have held that defen¬dants who are or may be guilty of anticompetitive prac¬tices should not be permitted to terminate franchises, leases or sales contracts when such terminations would effectuate those practices.” This is true even though “the plaintiff had violated the terms of the franchise or sales agreement and had given [the] defendant a contractual basis for termination.”4
In a case in the Eastern District of New York,5 a fran¬chisee violated its franchise agreement on several occa¬sions. Finally, the franchisor threatened to terminate the franchise agreement. The franchisee filed a complaint in state court seeking a temporary restraining order pro¬hibiting the franchisor from removing the franchisee from the franchisor’s reservation system. The tempo¬rary restraining order was granted and the defendant removed the case to the Eastern District, where the court held:
Read More on : Franchise Attorney Blog
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Press Release - Garrity Weiss
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GARRITY│WEISS, & ANAGO FRANCHISING
Press Release
ANAGO COMMERCIAL CLEANING FRANCHISE
“CLEANS UP” IN HIGH-STAKES LITIGATION
Press Release
ANAGO COMMERCIAL CLEANING FRANCHISE
“CLEANS UP” IN HIGH-STAKES LITIGATION
United States District Court, Southern District; Final Judgment in Favor of Franchisor Sends Message to Breaching Franchisees
Deerfield Beach, FL, January 31, 2010: Anago Franchising, Inc., (AFI), a national leader in the commercial cleaning franchise arena, called on old friend and counsel, Garrity│Weiss, P.A. to clean up a mammoth legal mess. Historically, Anago enjoyed a tradition of litigation-free franchising over the course of its twenty-years in operation. In that time, Anago grew from one Master Franchisee in South Florida to an international system comprised of over thirty Master cities throughout the United States alone.
However, in 2008 and 2009 the company was hit with two “bet the company” litigations. This type of litigation is characterized by fast-moving injunction proceedings, national witness coordination and strategy-setting, huge damages awards susceptible to pre-trial disposition on motion, and often significant appeals. In short, if you lose this type of case you are no longer in business.
However, in 2008 and 2009 the company was hit with two “bet the company” litigations. This type of litigation is characterized by fast-moving injunction proceedings, national witness coordination and strategy-setting, huge damages awards susceptible to pre-trial disposition on motion, and often significant appeals. In short, if you lose this type of case you are no longer in business.
Read more on : Franchise Attorney Blog
When the first case arose in 2008, Anago, quite naturally, engaged a large, well-known franchise firm in Miami to handle the matter against their Utah Master Franchisee. The experience left the company with a result far short of what they expected and should have gotten. With legal bills mounting and a lopsided settlement necessitated by their own counsel’s insistence that going to trial would not be worth the end result, Anago realized that they needed “real franchise experts”. News of the perceived ease with which a defaulting master franchisee could exit the Anago system traveled fast. Soon thereafter, Anago’s Phoenix Master Franchisee began diverting payments, keeping false records, and creating the need for a second lawsuit following directly on the heels of the first debacle. The Phoenix Master was represented by the same franchisee/plaintiff attorneys that brought suit on behalf of the Utah Master. The sharks smelled blood, and they were circling.
Anago made a major change, and fast. They needed litigators who were accomplished advocates in the courtroom, and willing to throw themselves into the case and do “what the big guys couldn’t”, which was, defend the Anago system and send a message out to others in the system. Garrity│Weiss immediately jumped into the fray and worked closely with Anago to put together a framework for saving the company. They went on the offensive and successfully initiated and settled the second litigation with the Phoenix Master resulting in a net gain of $1.4 million dollars over the previous representation. Terry Mollica, President of AFI, describes Garrity│Weiss as “a firm committed to its clients.” Mollica, who has been with Anago since its inception, stated “[i]f they had not come to our rescue, we would be defending more shark attacks at a cost rivaling the current national debt!”
Garrity│Weiss prides itself on a non-traditional approach in its representation of clients. The firm approaches each case as an attorney-client team, equally vested in the outcome of litigation. Through this philosophical shift, they have developed a family of clients, many of whom are Franchisors, who all view the firm as an extension of their franchise system.
# # #
See and Read more on : Franchise Attorney Blog # # #
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney at twitter
Franchise Lawyer- Franchise Attorney - GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Franchise Lawyer- Franchise Attorney - GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Franchise Lawyer - Franchise Attorney
Franchise Lawyer - Garrity Weiss has redesigned its website and has added this Blog in order to provide the public with more information regarding the firm and the areas of law in which we practice.
Facebook page View it and become Fan
Franchise Lawyer - GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Facebook page View it and become Fan
Franchise Lawyer - GARRITY-WEISS, P.A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)