Franchising (& Distribution) Currents

According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Franchise law journal 2012-10, Vol.32 (2), p.105-115
Main Authors: Batenhorst, Gary R., Byers, David M., Spencer, Robin M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Appellate courts
Arbitration
Bankruptcy
Contracts
Defendants
Disputes
Federal court decisions
Franchise agreements
Franchisees
Franchises
Injunctions
Just cause
Language
Plaintiffs
State court decisions
State courts
State laws
Statutory law
Summary judgments
Waivers
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages.
ISSN:8756-7962
2163-2154