As a trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience, Arthur helps franchise clients resolve disputes.
Chambers USA has recognized him among the top seven U.S. franchise lawyers for the past four years. According to client feedback, Arthur is “the go-to guy,” a “very good litigator,” “gets things done very efficiently” and is “very knowledgeable.” “His client service is great.”
What do you focus on?
I offer clients high level strategic advice based on my 30 plus years of experience in assisting multiple franchise companies from the largest international brands to the newest fledgling brands. My goal is to help my clients focus on their core businesses, without unnecessary preoccupation by disputes with business partners. I often appear in court on behalf of franchisors and sometimes appear on behalf of franchisees or distributors with legitimate business complaints that are not easily resolved.
I occasionally help clients structure franchise programs or convert an existing retail system to a franchise system. I also assist in the development of dispute resolution protocols that streamline resolution in a way that is fair to all stakeholders.
I’ve tried many cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels over my career. I am also a trained mediator with considerable experience as a mediation advocate and occasionally as a mediator.
Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Monster Mini Gold, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-01037-LKK-EFB (E.D. Cal. 2008) — Defended franchisor of monster-themed mini-gold course concept and its franchisee in federal trademark infringement and unfair competition claims by owner of various MONSTER marks who contended that it had trademark rights to exclusive use of the word "monster" in connection with various business applications. Settled on favorable terms. Reported in Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2009, "The Scariest Monster of All Sues for Trademark Infringement," p. 1.
et al v. Dunkin'''' Donuts, Inc. et al, No. 05-ca-050L (D.R.I. 2010) — Representation of franchisor at trial in defense of $13 M fraud and breach of contract claims by former franchisee. Jury trial in December 2009 ended in mistrial for juror misconduct, and retrial in January 2010 ended in directed verdict for franchisor. Appeal to 1st Circuit pending.
Pinnacle Pizza Co., Inc. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 786 (D.S.D. 2008), appeal pending, No. 08-3999 (8th Circuit) — Obtained summary judgment for restaurant franchisor on claims of alleged misappropriation of "Hot-N-Ready" franchise advertising concept, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tort claim for damages exceeding $600 M. Currently on appeal to 8th Circuit.