NEWS ITEM:
Mr. Caruso is now affiliated with the Asian American Hotel Owners Association

Since 1997, Carmen D. Caruso has represented franchisees & dealers as his primary concentration, and has become recognized as one of the leading franchisee attorneys in the United States.

Mr. Caruso has represented or advised clients in numerous brands and industries and he has litigated franchise cases from "A" to "Z".   He has achieved significant victories in the federal courts of appeals and has obtained impressive results for his clients.

While the clear majority of Mr. Caruso's legal work for franchisees is litigation, he also advises prospective clients in their purchase of a franchise, and cautions that all prospective franchisees would benefit from a review of the franchise agreement and offering circular and negotiating changes where appropriate.   He also counsels franchisees on dispute resolution  in the hope of avoiding litigation.   

Mr. Caruso also represents multi-unit owners and independent franchisee associations and he advocates the collective negotiation of franchise agreements.     

Mr. Caruso has served the interests of franchisees through the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers (1997 -) and the American Franchisee Association (1997-2001), the two leading associations that work to protect and advance franchisee interests. He is a frequent speaker for these associations.  He has also spoken before the American Bar Association (Forum on Franchising) as a franchisee's attorney.

Some highlights of Mr. Caruso's franchisee & distributor litigation includes:

• Interim Health Care of Northern Illinois v. Interim Health Care, 225 F.3d 876 (7th Cir.). , 225 F.3d 876 (7th Cir.), a federal court of appeals victory on the application of the doctrine of good faith & fair dealing to franchise terminations and the referral of national account business regarding patients in a defined territory.
  
  

• Baskin-Robbins franchise litigation (multiple cases in Illinois, Colorado and New Mexico, current).  Representation of multiple Baskin-Robbins franchisees in disputes over the enforcement of their post-termination non-compete clauses.  We have obtained a ruling from one federal judge in Chicago that there are serious questions as to whether Baskin-Robbins could obtain injunctive relief in markets where it has largely withdrawn from opening single stores and has been selective in enforcing its non-compete clauses.
  
  

• Berggren v. Bang & Olufsen of America, Inc. (Cook County, Illinois).  Current representation of six Bang & Olufsen dealers in Illinois, Indiana, Colorado, Texas, Oregon and Washington, who allege that their licenses were, in fact, hidden franchises, and were induced by fraud.
  
  

• Brodsky v. Cash Converters (American Arbitration Association).  Successful representation of area developer and franchisee on claims for fraudulent inducement based on false earnings claims.
  
  

• Cassan Enterprises, Inc. v. Dollar Systems, Inc., (United States Supreme Court).   Wrote  Amicus Curiae brief of  American Association of Franchisees & Dealers in support of Petition for Certiorari in a case involving a denial of access to a lucrative airport opportunity.
  
  

• Dunkin-Donuts franchise litigation (multiple cases in N.D. Illinois, current).  Representation as co-counsel in multiple Dunkin’ Donut franchisees in audit litigation, and termination cases.
  
  

• Home Repair, Inc. v. Paul W. Davis Systems, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 929 (N.D. Ill.). Successful prosecution of civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 for racial discrimination in denial of a franchise opportunity.  After the district court denied the franchisor’s motion for summary judgment in the cited opinion, the case was favorably settled on the day before the trial was to start.
  
  

• FBN v. Sizzler Restaurants Int. (N.D. Ill. and C.D. Cal.) .  Representing multi-store franchisee with fraud claims against franchisor, and defense of related termination proceeding, including successful mediation.  The case involved alleged fraud in the inducement and alleged failure to maintain system standards.
  
  

• Holiday Inn franchise litigation (Illinois).   Defense of multi-unit owner in termination case based on charges of permitting the operation of a prostitution ring near O’Hare airport, where the franchisor attempted to invoke cross-default clause.
  
  

• Jake’s Pizza Litigation (N.Ill.) and (N.D. Ill.). Representation of a group of franchisees who attempted to purchase their franchise system in a bankruptcy proceeding, and subsequent defense of a franchisee in claim against franchisor for premature termination of agreement in violation of franchise agreement and defense of trademark infringement claim.  
  
  

• Jostens, Inc. v. Potter (N.D. Ill.).  Successfully defended a class ring distributor in a civil contempt proceeding, in which the distributor had been charged with violating an injunction that had previously been entered, to enforce the terms of a non-compete clause.  Mr. Caruso entered the case after the federal district judge had already held the client in contempt.  Mr. Caruso persuaded the judge to give the client a new trial, which lasted four days, at which Mr. Caruso prevailed.
  
  

• Merlin Muffler Franchise Litigation  (N.D. Ill.). Multiple lawsuits in defense of association officers and other owners who were targeted for termination by the franchisor, including defense against termination of multi-store owner on basis of cross-default clauses.