Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—E.D. Pa.: Market-wide anticompetitive impact lacking in toy auction dispute
    • ADVERTISING—1st Cir.: Website did not provide sufficient contacts for Massachusetts suit against Arizona firm
    • ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Consumers’ false and deceptive advertising claims against Tempur-Sealy may proceed
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: AAI letter to FTC raises competition concerns over merger of Teva and Allergan
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Dental supplies distributors allegedly conspired to monopolize market through group boycotts
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Special master recommends final approval of $576M settlement in CRT price fixing litigation
    • ANTITRUST—S.D. Ill.: Sanctions denied in real estate tax auction bid rigging suit against county official
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: GM, used car dealers settle FTC charges that ads failed to disclose unrepaired safety recalls
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: 7-Eleven charged with unlawful termination, requiring execution of less favorable franchise agreements
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—S.D.N.Y.: Affiliates of terminated distributor may continue selling supplier’s printing products
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—W.D. Okla.: Franchisees’ fraud claims against individual defendants barred
    • WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—W.D. Okla.: Franchisees’ fraud claims against individual defendants barred, (Jan 29, 2016)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Davis & Sarbinoff LLP | Resolution Legal Group | Sansone Howell PLLC
    Organizations Mentioned:Aditi 3 Yummy Yogurt, LLC | OT Holdings, LLC. | Orange Leaf Holdings, LLC | Orange Leaf Licensing, LLC | Yummy Yogurt Indy, LLC | Yummy Yogurt Mudga, LLC

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Fraud claims made against individual defendants by franchisees of a frozen yogurt chain franchisor were dismissed by the federal district court in Oklahoma City. The court determined that the franchisees’ claims were either insufficient to sta ...

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Fraud claims made against individual defendants by franchisees of a frozen yogurt chain franchisor were dismissed by the federal district court in Oklahoma City. The court determined that the franchisees’ claims were either insufficient to state a claim against the individual defendants or barred by their franchise agreements’ integration clause (Yummy Yogurt Indy, LLC v. Orange Leaf Licensing LLC, January 28, 2016, Cauthron, R.).

    The franchisees filed a complaint against the franchisor, Orange Leaf Holdings, LLC, and four individuals, alleging common law fraud, statutory fraud, and breach of contract. In response, Orange Leaf filed a motion to strike and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

    In support of their motion to dismiss, the individual defendants argued that the franchisees’ fraud claims were barred by the integration clause in the franchise agreements signed by the parties. The court agreed. It determined that, because the integration clause established itself as controlling the scope of the parties’ agreement, any prior oral representations could not overcome the written agreement.

    The court also found that any of the franchisees’ claims based on future events should be dismissed. To the extent such claims would exist, they would also be barred by the integration clause, as they would be oral promises which would allegedly attempt to overcome the terms of the parties’ written agreement.

    Finally, the court determined that the allegations in the amended complaint of misappropriation of the advertising fund, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with attempts to mitigate were insufficient to state claims against the individual defendants. For the same reason, it also dismissed the franchisees’ claim for breach of contract against the individual defendants.

    The case is No: CIV-15-272-C.

    Attorneys: Jason A. Sansone (Sansone Howell PLLC) and P. Adam Davis (Davis & Sarbinoff LLP) for Yummy Yogurt Indy, LLC; Yummy Yogurt Mudga, LLC; and Aditi 3 Yummy Yogurt, LLC. Adam J. Strange (Resolution Legal Group) for Orange Leaf Licensing, LLC; Orange Leaf Holdings, LLC; and OT Holdings, LLC.

    Companies: Yummy Yogurt Indy, LLC; Yummy Yogurt Mudga, LLC; Aditi 3 Yummy Yogurt, LLC; Orange Leaf Licensing, LLC; Orange Leaf Holdings, LLC; OT Holdings, LLC.

    Cases: FranchisingDistribution OklahomaNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use