Burger King Corp. v. Austin
Decision Date | 09 October 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 90-0784-CIV.,90-0784-CIV. |
Citation | 805 F. Supp. 1007 |
Parties | BURGER KING CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants, v. James R. AUSTIN, Loretta W. Austin and Austin Food Corp., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
T. Joan Lawrence, Steel Hector & Davis, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Stephen M. Jampol, Rock & Leits, Atlanta, Ga., Stuart H. Sobel, Sobel & Sobel, Miami, Fla., for defendants.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Counter-Defendant Burger King Corporation's ("BKC") Motions: (1) to Dismiss Defendants' ("Austins") First Amended Counterclaim ("Counterclaim"); and (2) to Strike Defendants' Prayer for Damages in the Counterclaim. Also pending is Austins' Appeal from Magistrate Judge Bandstra's Order dated November 30, 1990.
Austins were franchisees of two Burger King restaurants. As a result of their nonpayment of royalties, advertising and sales promotion expenses, and rents as provided by the Franchise Agreements, BKC terminated the franchise relationships on March 30, 1990. Nevertheless, Defendants continued to operate the restaurants and to use the Burger King trademark. BKC brought this action for damages and injunctive relief for breach of several agreements that Austins had executed in connection with the franchises, under the Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a), and for common law unfair competition and trademark infringement.
Defendants admitted in their Answer that they did not pay the various sums to BKC, but claim that their failure to pay was excused because of the various claims asserted in their counterclaims.
On December 26, 1990, the Court granted BKC's Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Austins' continued use of the BKC trademark. On November 5, 1990, the Court granted BKC's Motion to Dismiss Austins' Counterclaim, however, granted Austins' leave to amend such Counterclaim. Austins filed an Amended Counterclaim, which is the subject of this Order.
A court shall not grant a motion to dismiss unless it appears beyond doubt that a claimant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In examining a motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the claims are taken as true and are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Burch v. Apalachee Community Mental Health Serv., Inc., 840 F.2d 797, 798 (11th Cir. 1988), aff'd, 494 U.S. 113, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990); Jackam v. Hospital Corp. of Am. Mideast, 800 F.2d 1577, 1579 (11th Cir.1986) () (citations omitted); St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948, 954 (11th Cir.1986); Quality Foods v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., 711 F.2d 989, 995 (11th Cir. 1983) ( ).
Counts I and II of the Counterclaim allege "Breach of Express Contract" for Franchise Agreements # 3754 and # 6470,1 respectively.2 Both Counts contain eight allegations of BKC's breach by:
The Court finds that Allegations One through Five and Eight can support a claim for breach of express contract. Each of the allegations alleges a breach of a specific clause in the Franchise Agreement. Although some of the clauses that were allegedly breached are in the Introduction to the Agreement, the Agreement specifies that the Introduction is a part of the Agreement. BKC argues that Allegation Five is insufficient because the Franchise Agreement imposes no duty on BKC to encourage, solicit, or implement any Franchisee suggestions. The Court disagrees; Section 4 of the Franchise Agreement states, in relevant part: "Suggestions from franchisees for improving elements of the Burger King System, such as products, equipment, uniforms, restaurant facilities, service format and advertising are encouraged and will be considered by BKC when adopting or modifying standards, specifications and procedures for the Burger King System." This clause requires BKC to encourage and consider franchisee suggestions.3 If BKC refused to do so, it would be in breach of the Agreement. Accordingly, this allegation can support Austins' claim in Counts I and II.
BKC argues that Austins' allegations relating to advertising (Six and Seven) in Counts I and II of their Counterclaim are specifically negated by the express terms of the Franchise Agreement. Section 8(B) of the Franchise Agreement states, in relevant part:
In addition, FRANCHISEE shall pay to BKC an amount equal to 4% of FRANCHISEE's monthly gross sales by the tenth (10th) day of each month based upon FRANCHISEE's gross sales for the preceding month. This sum, less direct administrative expenses, will be used for advertising, sales promotion and public relations both in the market area (A.D.I.) in which the Franchised Restaurant is located and on a national basis.... All such expenditures shall be at the discretion of BKC.
In its Order dated November 5, 1990, the Court dismissed a very similar claim of breach of express contract: The Court finds that this Order continues to be controlling here. The Agreement states that BKC retains discretion over advertising spending; accordingly, BKC could not have breached the express terms of the contract by failing to spend monies on local advertising.4 Allegations Six and Seven are therefore STRICKEN.
Count III of the Counterclaim for "Conversion of Advertising Monies" alleges that BKC exercised dominion and control over advertising funds paid by Austins and failed to expend said funds on advertising, resulting in an unlawful conversion of said funds.
As a threshold matter, we must first determine which law applies to this tort claim. The Franchise Agreement provides that it "shall be governed and construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida." However, Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Vintage Selections, Ltd., 971 F.2d 401, 407 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted); see Ritchie Enter. v. Honeywell Bull, Inc., 730 F.Supp. 1041, 1046 (D.Kan.1990). Florida utilizes the "most significant relationship" test to determine which state's law applies to tort claims. Garcia v. Public Health Trust, 841 F.2d 1062, 1064-65 (11th Cir.1988). Here, both Florida and Georgia have significant relationships to the parties. The Court, however, does not at this time determine which of the two has the "most" significant relationship because it appears that the law of conversion is similar in both states.
Conversion is defined as:
An act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another's property inconsistent with his ownership therein. In essence, conversion is an unauthorized act which deprives another of his property permanently or for an indefinite time. It is the disseisin of the owner or an interference with legal rights which are incident to ownership, such as the right to possession. Its essential element is a wrongful deprivation of property of the owner.
12 Fla.Jur.2d Conversion & Replevin § 1 (1979). Belford Trucking Co. v. Zagar, 243 So.2d 646 (Fla.App.Dist.1970) (citations omitted); see Advanced Surgical Technologies, Inc. v. Automated Instruments, Inc., 777 F.2d 1504, 1507 (11th Cir.1985); Futch v. Head, 511 So.2d 314, 320-21 (Fla.App.Dist.1987); Douglas v. Braman Porsche Audi, Inc., 451 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.App.Dist.1984).5
Here, Austins' allegations regarding BKC's failure to expend funds it collected from Austins on advertising are based solely on the obligations contained in the Franchise Agreement. Such allegations are properly asserted in a claim for breach of contract (as Austins have asserted in Counts I and II in their claim for breach of express contract and in Counts IV and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
... ... Zundel, Jr., David L. Dawson, Bond Schoeneck & King, Naples, FL, James S. Teater, Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, Dallas TX, ... BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d 935, 952 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)); see ... § 1125(a)); Burger King Corp. v. Majeed, 805 F.Supp. 994, 1001 (S.D.Fla. 1992). Section ... v. Austin, 805 F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (S.D.Fla.1992) (citations omitted); see also Kee ... ...
-
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours
... ... Rather, they are decided according to the law of the forum state." Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F.Supp. 1007, 1012 (S.D.Fla.1992) (quoting ... ...
-
Hall v. Burger King Corp.
... ... Hall reserved no claims against BKC. Indeed, Hall does not challenge the enforceability of this Release. Accordingly, this Release encompasses each of Hall's claims which had matured by May 9, 1987. See Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F.Supp. 1007, 1017-18 (S.D.Fla.1992) (general release encompasses all claims which have matured as of the date of the release); Pettinelli v. Danzig, supra, 722 F.2d at 708; Sottile v. Gaines Constr. Co., supra, 281 So.2d at 561 ... 912 F. Supp. 1542 (iii) The 1988 ... ...
-
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Intern., Inc.
... ... Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 463, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 1781, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967); King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 333 U.S. 153, 157-62, 68 S.Ct. 488, 490-93, 92 L.Ed. 608, ... 338 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1993) ("no pre-trial proffer of evidence is necessary"); Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F.Supp. 1007, 1025 n. 30 (S.D.Fla.1992) (section 768.72 inapplicable in ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...762 F.2d 257 (2d Cir. 1985), 92 Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Fein, 342 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1965), 214, 215 Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. Fla. 1992), 131, 132, 140 Burger King Corp. v. Hall, 770 F. Supp. 633 (S.D. Fla. 1991), 193 Burger King Corp. v. Hinton, Inc., 203 F. ......
-
State Regulation of Franchising: the Washington Experience Revisited
...in a broadcast transmission originating outside the state). 123. A franchisor raised a similar argument in Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. Fla. 1992). In that case, the franchisee was located in Georgia. See id. at 1022. The franchise agreement contained a choice of law......
-
Adjunct Claims And Defenses
...and franchisee, and thus no cause of action for failure to disclose allegedly material information) and Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007, 1019-21 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (no fiduciary, confidential, or special relationship between franchisor and franchisee engaged in arms-length deal......
-
Laura B. Bartell, the Peripatetic Debtor: Choice of Law and Choice of Exemptions
...Injection Serv. Co. v. Jacobs Vehicle Equip. Co., 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 741 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002); cf. Burger King Corp. v. Austin, 805 F. Supp. 1007, 1022-23 & n.24 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (finding no clear intent in Florida Franchise Act to limit its applicability to Florida residents, but stating......