United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
FEDERICO A. MORE UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case arises from a franchise relationship. Plaintiff is
bringing claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the Florida Franchise Act, and common law
claims of promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
Defendants have moved to dismiss all the claims. The Court
grants the motion to dismiss as to the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, but grants Plaintiff leave to
amend its complaint to allege actual damages consistent with
its response to the motion to dismiss. The Court finds the
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the promissory estoppel and
breach of contract claims and denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss those two counts. Finally, the Court finds
the parties' franchise agreement containing a Maryland
choice of law provision precludes the Plaintiffs claim under
the Florida Franchise Act, a claim that stems from the
parties' franchise relationship, which is governed by
CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (D.E. 18), filed on February 3.
COURT has considered the motion, the response, the pertinent
portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in
the premises, it is ADJUDGED that the motion
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court grants
Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint consistent with
this Order by no later than September 13,
Maurice's Jewelers II, Inc., brings a four-count
complaint against Defendants Pandora Jewelry, LLC and Pandora
Franchising, LLC. In February 2011, the parties entered into
a Master Purchase Authorization Agreement to allow Plaintiff
to retail Pandora jewelry at a Dolphin Mall location in
Miami, Florida. Plaintiffs principal, Andrew Koppel, had
prior agreements with Defendants and a right of first refusal
to open new Pandora franchise stores.
First Amended Complaint alleges there are different types of
Concept Store: A full-blown Pandora store, which carries all
Pandora products, and branded storefront.
Shop-in-shop: A shop-in-shop is a clearly defined space
within a store dedicated to Pandora products.
Gold Dealer: Gold dealers are multi-brand retailers with a
strong Pandora profile.
Silver and White Dealers: Silver dealers have Pandora branded
fittings in the store, but to a lesser extent than gold
dealers. White dealers are multi-brand retailers carrying a
Master Purchase Authorization designates the Dolphin Mall
location as a Silver dealer. The Master Purchase
Authorization does not specify what products a Silver Dealer
can retail, but it says it must carry at least four lines.
The Master Purchase Authorization also states that an
authorized retailer may elect to be a Gold, Silver, or White
retailer at its discretion and may elect to change such
retailer status at any time.
November 2013, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants'
employee Judy Viera sent Plaintiff a letter. Viera advised
that although the Dolphin Mall location would be designated
as a Silver dealer, Plaintiff would be permitted to carry all
Pandora jewelry lines and products with the exception of
watches at the Dolphin Mall location.
reliance on Viera's express assurance, Plaintiff alleges
it proceeded to develop the Dolphin Mall location, by
negotiating a lease for retail space, undertaking
improvements, and purchasing fixtures for jewelry display. It
incurred architectural costs of $14, 500 and the construction
budget was between $400, 000-$500, 000. Pandora Jewelry
reviewed the layout for the location, as it did for
Plaintiffs other ...