ILNews

Steak ’n Shake loses appeal over franchisee’s independent pricing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A longtime Steak ’n Shake franchisee who sued the chain after it insisted on setting prices for menu items prevailed again Friday as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Illinois federal court’s ruling in the franchisee’s favor.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted franchisee Stuller Inc. a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of a policy Steak ’n Shake announced in 2010 in which the company set prices for all menu items at its company-owned and franchise stores.

“The record contains sufficient evidence to find, as a threshold matter, that Stuller would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to implement Steak N Shake’s pricing policy. Specifically, Stuller has presented evidence that the policy would be a significant change to its business model and that it would negatively affect its revenue, possibly even to a considerable extent,” 7th Circuit Judge Daniel Manion wrote for the unanimous panel.

Springfield, Ill.-based Stuller operate five Illinois Steak ’n Shake restaurants under franchise agreements with predecessors that date back to 1939, making it the oldest franchise in the country, according to Manion’s opinion. “In all that time, Stuller has had the ability to set menu prices,” he wrote.

Stuller sued when Steak ’n Shake said it would terminate the franchises if Stuller refused to adopt a new policy of uniform prices and promotions. It won the injunction while the court considers Stuller’s request for a declaratory judgment that it wasn’t required to comply with the policy. Stuller also accused Steak ’n Shake of breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act.  

In its interlocutory appeal, Indianapolis-based Steak ’n Shake argued that the injunction should not have been granted, citing the court’s ruling in Second City Music, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 333 F.3d 846, 850 (7th Cir. 2003) that stated “Injury caused by failure to secure a readily available license is self-inflicted, and self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”

“Steak N Shake misreads our decision in Second City,” Manion wrote.

“We acknowledge that Steak N Shake contests the validity and strength of the evidence presented by Stuller, but that argument goes to the ‘sliding scale analysis’ conducted by a court in deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, and not to Stuller’s threshold requirements. In addition, if Stuller implemented Steak N Shake’s policy and subsequently prevailed on the merits of its case, it would be difficult to reestablish its previous business model without a loss of goodwill and reputation. Because this is harm that cannot be ‘fully rectified by the final judgment after trial,’ it is irreparable,” the court ruled.

In a footnote, the court said, “We also note that a review of the district court’s docket sheet indicates that the district court issued an opinion on July 12, 2012 denying Steak N Shake’s motion for summary judgment on all the claims, granting Stuller’s motion for summary judgment (for a declaratory judgment), and denying Stuller’s motion for summary judgment on (breach claims) and setting a trial date in September on the issue of damages. Because Stuller’s case now has a greater likelihood of success, the balance of harms when granting an injunction weighs even more in Stuller’s favor.”


 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT