DUNKIN' DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC v. SAI FOOD HOISPITALITY, LLC, 4:11CV01484 AGF. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20130813a65
Filed: Aug. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. 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 coul
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge. 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..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.
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.
Source: Leagle
