IBJNews

Judge tosses Noble Roman's franchisee claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noble Roman's Inc. has won a pivotal courtroom victory in a battle with 14 former franchisees of its dual-branded Noble Roman’s Pizza and Tuscano’s Italian Style Subs restaurants.

The Indianapolis-based chain is pursuing a judgment of more than $3.6 million against the former franchisees after a Hamilton County judge in December tossed civil claims that the chain committed fraud.

The franchisees filed a lawsuit in June 2008, saying Noble Roman’s misled them about the costs and profit potential of the restaurants. The former franchise locations, in several states including Kentucky, Missouri and California, have since closed.

The chain argued the franchisees were entirely at fault for their own failures, thanks to “mismanagement and incompetence.” Yet the chain has acknowledged that its effort to quickly open hundreds of stand-alone, dual-branded Noble Roman’s and Tuscano’s locations did not work out as hoped.

"This has been a long and expensive lawsuit but we are pleased the court has recognized that the allegations of fraud against the company and its officers were without merit," company president A. Scott Mobley wrote in an e-mail.

The franchises were seeking more than $8 million in damages, a sum that could have left Noble Roman's insolvent. The chain, which operates in 45 states, has a market value of just $20 million. Noble Roman's shares closed at $1.05 apiece on Friday.

Hamilton County Superior Court Judge Steven R. Nation wrote that the franchisees had "no reasonable right" to rely on the chain's verbal sales pitch.

"There was an acknowledgment in the franchise agreement that plaintiff understood and acknowledged the obligation to conduct an independent investigation and the business involved a substantial risk," Nation wrote in the ruling on Dec. 23, 2010.

Noble Roman’s has reinvented itself several times over the years since launching in the 1970s as a chain of dine-in restaurants. In 1997, after intense competition and rising costs made stand-alone pizza joints difficult to operate profitably, Noble Roman’s turned to franchising and opened about 800 nontraditional outlets in locations such as convenience stores, bowling alleys and hospitals.

The chain sold about 90 dual-format franchises between 2006 and 2008 and 55 of them opened, but at least half have since closed.

“The franchisees were misled into buying a concept that was not sufficiently tested,” franchisee attorney P. Adam Davis of locally based Davis & Sarbinoff LLP told IBJ in August 2009. “They were in fact the guinea pigs. And that’s not what you buy a franchise for. The point is that you’re getting a tested and proven concept."

Davis, who took over the case after Nation revoked the temporary admission of attorney David M. Duree of Illinois, was not available to discuss the judge's ruling.

Noble Roman's latest reinvention involves a new offering of take-and-bake pizzas, pasta sauces, deep-dish lasagna and other retail products in grocery stores.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT