Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Donut Shop Area Developer Denied Supreme Court Review of Decision Based on Judicial Admission, (Feb 19, 2013)

By William Zale, J.D.

In a case in which a $336,000 damages award to a donut shop area developer was overturned on appeal as barred by a two-year contractual limitation in a store development agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court will not decide whether an appeals court improperly disregarded a trial court’s findings of fact in relying on an admission by the developer. Today, the Supreme Court denied the developer’s petition for certiorari in Progressive Foods, LLC v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc., Dkt. 12-767, which was filed December 21, 2012.

Left standing is an August 9, 2012, not-for-publication decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The developer alleged that it had “timely notified” the franchisor of claims against it more than two years prior to the date the developer brought suit. In order to qualify as judicial admissions, statements must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous, but they did not need to be true, according to the appellate court. The appellate court held that the developer’s admission was binding as to when it had discovered the factual basis for all of its claims against the franchisor and related defendants.

Attorneys: Thomas R. Brule (Brule Law Firm, LLC) for Progressive Foods, LLC. Robert L. Zisk (Gray, Plant, Mooty) for Dunkin' Donuts, Inc.

Companies: Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc.; Progressive Foods, LLC

News: FranchisingDistribution