John D. Holland Franchisee Lawyer

Attorneys

John D. Holland | Franchisee Lawyer

Contact Me: 612.359.3504jholland@dadygardner.com

John D. Holland is a partner at Dady & Gardner, P.A.  John has successfully resolved disputes, both nationally and internationally, involving unlawful termination, encroachment, transfer rights, and violation of state franchise and dealership laws.

John has successfully negotiated with multiple equipment manufacturers to reverse decisions to terminate the dealership rights of John’s equipment dealer clientele.

Court decisions illustrative of John’s work on behalf of franchisees and dealers include the following: Larry Hobbs Farm Equipment, Inc. v. CNH America, LLC,  375 Ark. 379, 291  S.W.3d 190(Ark. 2009) (holding that market withdrawal is not good cause for a manufacturer’s termination of its dealer under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act); Randall v. Lady of America Franchise Corp., 2005 WL 2709641 (D. Minn. 2005) (boilerplate merger and integration clauses do not prohibit the introduction of pre-contractual misrepresentations to establish fraud); Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1089 (D. Minn. 2007) (anti-waiver provisions of the Minnesota Franchise Act prohibit franchisors from using contractual provisions to protect themselves from being sued for misrepresentation under the Minnesota Franchise Act); Capital Equipment, Inc. v. CNH America, LLC, 2004 WL 3406091 (E.D. Ark. 2004) (under the Uniform Commercial Code, a manufacturer must fix in good faith the price of equipment sold pursuant to contractual open price term); Lakeworth Lodging Partners, Ltd. v. Best Western International, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 12,580 (D. Ariz. 2003) (a party may breach the implied covenant by exercising express discretion in a way that is inconsistent with the other party’s anticipated benefits of the bargain); Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Oksendahl, 2007 WL 2084143 (D. Minn. 2007) (denying franchisor request for injunctive relief to enforce a post-term non-compete and prevent former franchisees’ continued operation of independent businesses in their former franchise territories); A&W Restaurants, Inc. v. Lance, 2011 WL 3880937 (W.D.Ky. 2011) (denying franchisor motion for preliminary injunction against continued operation of the franchise) ; Romeo Maintenance and Rental v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 12,259 (Dist. Ct. Minn. 2001) (minimum purchase requirements may constitute “franchise fee” for purposes of franchise act); Twin Cities Galleries, LLC v. Media Arts Group, Inc., 415 F.Supp.2d 967 (D. Minn. 2006) (arbitral award may be vacated where arbitrators dismissed state franchise act claim in violation of fundamental state public policy); Lake Region Partners, LLC v. Crest Marine, LLC, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 15,596 (D. Mo. 2015) (dealer’s claims under Missouri Marine Franchise Dealers Act may proceed notwithstanding constitutional challenge on dormant commerce clause grounds); Black Hills Truck & Trailer v. MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 16,070 (D.S.D. 2017) (under the South Dakota dealership statute, a manufacturer alleging a performance deficiency must issue a “ninety-day written notice and that the same notice must include the reasons for the action and sixty days to cure”); and Black Hills Truck & Trailer v. MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 16,012 (D.S.D. 2017) (rejecting a manufacturer’s Daubert motion to exclude an expert report and holding that, in a loss-of-line case, where the dealer’s “overhead or fixed expenses are not affected by the defendant’s breach, no deduction should be made in calculating the profits which the plaintiff would have made had it not been for the breach”). Black Hills Truck & Trailer v. MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 16,070 (D.S.D. 2017) (under the South Dakota dealership statute, a manufacturer alleging a performance deficiency must issue a “ninety-day written notice and that the same notice must include the reasons for the action and sixty days to cure.”); and Black Hills Truck & Trailer v. MAC Trailer Manufacturing, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 16,012 (D.S.D. 2017) (rejecting a manufacturer’s Daubert motion to exclude an expert report and holding that, in a loss-of-line case, where the dealer’s “overhead or fixed expenses are not affected by the defendant’s breach, no deduction should be made in calculating the profits which the plaintiff would have made had it not been for the breach”).

John has been admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota Supreme Court; the United States District Court for the State of Minnesota; the United States District Court for the State of Arkansas; the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

John graduated with honors from the University of Minnesota Law School and St. Olaf College. He has been named among the Best Lawyers in America®, a “Super Lawyer” by Minnesota’s Law & Politics Magazine, a “Legal Eagle” by Franchise Times Magazine., and has been listed in the International Who’s Who of Franchise Lawyers.

Franchise Times legal eagle 2018


Best Lawyers Award Badge

Best Lawyers Award Badge

 

 

Direct Dial: 1-612-359-3504