Blanton v. Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC et al

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

2:18-cv-13207

Court:

Michigan Eastern

Nature of Suit:

Anti-Trust

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

Victoria A. Roberts

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. August 12, 2020

    Domino's Delivers Argument Against Ex-Worker's Appeal Bid

    Domino's Pizza has urged a Michigan federal court not to pause a suit targeting no-poach provisions in its past franchise agreements while a former employee attempts to appeal a Sixth Circuit loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the lower court can't undo the appellate court order sending the case to arbitration.

  2. July 27, 2020

    Domino's Worker To Ask Justices To Revive No-Poach Suit

    A former Domino's employee is set to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a proposed class action targeting no-poach provisions in the pizza chain's franchise agreements, after the Sixth Circuit allowed the claims to get pushed into arbitration.

  3. October 25, 2019

    Ex-Domino's Workers Must Arbitrate No-Poach Antitrust Suit

    A Michigan federal judge said on Friday that former Domino's Pizza Inc. workers will have to arbitrate their claims that the pizza chain made its franchises promise not to hire each other's employees, then misled the public to believe no such agreement existed.

  4. August 15, 2019

    Where Franchise No-Poach Agreements Stand Today

    Washington state's attorney general is forging ahead with a campaign against no-poach provisions in franchise agreements, cutting deals last week with four more chains to eliminate the practice, but with few courts weighing in so far, it is unclear which legal standard for judging the provisions will prevail.

  5. May 28, 2019

    Domino's Pizza Must Face No-Poach Antitrust Suit

    Domino's can't dodge a lawsuit accusing the pizza restaurant of making its franchises promise not to hire each other's employees, then misleading the public to believe no such agreement existed, a Michigan federal judge has ruled.