Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stanley v. Numero Uno Franchise Corp.
Citations: 741 F. Supp. 1237; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10234; 1990 WL 113192Docket: Civ. A. 90-83-B
Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana; June 23, 1990; Federal District Court
L. Jerome Stanley, Dr. Jacques de la Bretonne, and Ed W. Litolff, Jr. initiated a breach of contract suit against Numero Uno Franchise Corporation and Ronald Gelet in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, citing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Ronald Gelet filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service of process under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(4) and (5). The court, however, opted to transfer the case sua sponte to the Central District of California, citing the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice. The plaintiffs alleged that Numero Uno failed to fulfill its obligations under the franchise agreement, leading to damages and business closure. The Franchise Agreement stipulated that California law governs disputes. Notably, Stanley had previously filed a similar lawsuit against these defendants, which was also transferred to California and resolved there. All defendants are California residents, and most Numero Uno restaurants are located in Southern California, reinforcing the court's decision that California is the most appropriate forum for this case. The court ordered the transfer of the case to the Central District of California.