Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC et al v. SAI Food & Hospitality, LLC et al

Filing 178

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is before the Court on a Plaintiffs' "Supplemental Memorandum" (Doc. No. 177) filed in response to the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 16, 2013. The Court construes the Supplemental Me morandum as a motion for reconsideration or clarification of the Court's conclusion in the Memorandum and Order that if Defendants prevail on their claim that termination of the Florissant franchise agreement was wrongful, Defendants could poten tially be entitled to recoup their investment in the Florissant store, less the current value of the store and profits they realized. Although the Court did not rule on any issues related to the Store Development Agreement ("SDA"), the Co urt did mention that agreement, and will grant Plaintiffs' motion to the extent of clarifying that indeed the Court had previously granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on Count II of the Third Amended Counterclaim in which Defendants claimed breach of the SDA. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or clarification in other regards.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/12/2013. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DUNKIN= DONUTS FRANCHISING
LLC; DD IP HOLDER LLC; BASKINROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC; and BR
IP HOLDER LLC,
Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants,
vs.
SAI FOOD HOISPITALITY, LLC,
JAYANT PATEL, and ULKA PATEL,
Defendants / Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
DUNKIN’ BRANDS GROUP INC. and
DUNKIN’ BRANDS INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV01484 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Supplemental Memorandum” (Doc.
No. 177) filed in response to the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 16, 2013.
The Court construes the Supplemental Memorandum as a motion for reconsideration or
clarification of the Court’s conclusion in the Memorandum and Order that if Defendants
prevail on their claim that termination of the Florissant franchise agreement was
wrongful, Defendants could potentially be entitled to recoup their investment in the
Florissant store, less the current value of the store and profits they realized.

Although the Court did not rule on any issues related to the Store Development
Agreement (“SDA”), the Court did mention that agreement, and will grant Plaintiffs’
motion to the extent of clarifying that indeed the Court had previously granted Plaintiffs
summary judgment on Count II of the Third Amended Counterclaim in which Defendants
claimed breach of the SDA. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or
clarification in other regards.
_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of August, 2013.

2