Acrobat PDF

Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 11

You must be logged in to download this document
Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
11
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/9/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties Doc. 11 Case 1:06-cv-02528-JLK Document 11 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 06-CV-02528-JLK-CBS ______________________________________________________________________________ BRAY et al., Plaintiffs, vs. QFA ROYALTIES LLC, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DAVID TATE ______________________________________________________________________________ I, David Tate, declare as follows: 1. I serve on the board of directors of the Toasted Subs Franchisee Association, Inc. (“TSFA”). I am the Managing Member of Big Little Property Investments LLC (“Big Little”) and an owner of CTH Investments (“CTH”)—entities that transact business with Quiznos on behalf of myself and my partners. Big Little owns and operates Quiznos Store No. 6716, which is located at 209 Center Street, Chardon, Ohio 44024. CTH owns and operates Quiznos Store No. 5647, which is located at 9582 Diamond Center Drive, Mentor, Ohio 44060. None of the owners of Big Little or CTH (besides myself) have ever been involved in the management of the TSFA. 2. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A are true and correct excerpts from the February 3, 2004 Franchise Agreement governing Quiznos Store No. 6716. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B are true and correct excerpts of the August 26, 2003 Franchise MADISON\733034.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-02528-JLK Document 11 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 2 Agreement governing Quiznos Store No. 5647. The full Franchise Agreements for these two stores are otherwise nearly identical with the full agreement filed as Exhibit A to the Jehad Majed Declaration in this matter. 3. On December 11, 2006, I received two letters from Frederic C. Cohen, Esq., an attorney with DLA Piper in Chicago, Illinois. Each letter is dated December 8, 2006 and purports to terminate the franchise relationship with Quiznos in relation to Quiznos Store Nos. 6716 and 5647. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibits C and D are true and correct copies of Mr. Cohen’s letters. 4. If Quiznos’ threatened termination takes effect, Big Little, CTH, as well as my partners and I, will face irreparable harm, including, among other things, the impairment of our ability to maintain marketplace position and loss of goodwill. In addition, Quiznos’ cure proposal threatens to impose a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights because under the proposal, we can avoid termination of the franchises only if we agree to Quiznos’ coercive demand for compelled speech and restrictions on our rights to free speech and to associate. It is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate damages for the cessation of franchise operations due to the inherent nature of these harms. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Dated this 18th day of December, 2006. s/ David Tate David Tate 2 MADISON\733034.1

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 70
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 41
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 7
Views: 18  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 26
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 21
Views: 9  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 5
Views: 25  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 27
Views: 13  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 46
Views: 10  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 53
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 4
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 10
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 8
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 12
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 6
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
Bray et al v QFA Royalties - 34
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0