August 21, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
August 21, 2025 | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published decision, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a complete defense judgment in favor of Smash Franchise Partners, LLC—the franchisor of the “Smash My Trash” mobile waste compaction system—and its Kansas City franchisee. The plaintiff, a national waste hauler, alleged that the franchisee’s compaction services constituted trespass to chattels, unjust enrichment, and other torts, and sought both damages and a jury trial. After extensive motion practice, the district court struck the plaintiff’s jury demand, held a bench trial, and entered judgment for the franchisor and franchisee on all claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff disclaimed compensatory damages, failed to establish any actual injury, could not rely on nominal damages under Missouri law, and could not pursue unjust enrichment because express contracts governed the underlying customer relationships. The appellate court also noted that the franchisor could not be vicariously liable under Missouri law because no evidence tied it to the alleged conduct and the plaintiff waived any appellate challenge to the district court’s franchisor-liability ruling.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations, Republic Services operates waste-hauling businesses nationwide, including in Kansas City, where it owns thousands of open-top waste containers placed at customer sites. Smash My Trash KC, LLC—an independently owned franchisee of Smash Franchise Partners—offers mobile waste compaction services to commercial customers in the same region. The franchisee contracted directly with some of Republic’s customers to compact waste inside Republic’s containers using a “Smash Truck,” which allegedly compresses waste to reduce haul-away frequency. Republic alleged that this process damaged its containers, interfered with customer relationships, and violated its property rights. The franchisee disputed those allegations and maintained that its activities were fully authorized by Republic’s customers pursuant to their contracts.
Republic sued both the franchisee and the franchisor, asserting eight claims, including trespass to chattels, conversion, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, breach of sub-bailment, unjust enrichment, and false advertising. Republic also sought a temporary restraining order, which the district court denied after finding no irreparable harm. During discovery, Republic acknowledged that it could not identify evidence of actual physical damage to its containers, and its corporate representative testified that Republic had never calculated compensatory damages. Republic ultimately stipulated that it was not seeking compensatory damages, instead pursuing only declaratory relief, equitable remedies, and nominal damages.
The district court granted the franchisee’s motion to strike Republic’s jury demand, finding no viable claim for compensatory damages and noting that the claims asserted either equitable remedies or damages unavailable under Missouri law. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for both the franchisee and the franchisor. Republic appealed.
Decision
The Eighth Circuit affirmed across the board. As to the jury-trial issue, the court held that the Seventh Amendment applies only where a plaintiff seeks legal relief supported by evidence of compensatory damages. Because Republic repeatedly disclaimed actual damages, presented no competent evidence of injury, and sought only declaratory and equitable remedies, the district court properly struck the jury demand. The court further held that Missouri law does not permit nominal damages for claims requiring pecuniary loss, including trespass to chattels, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiff’s inability to rely on nominal damages eliminated any statutory basis for a jury.
The court then affirmed judgment on the trespass-to-chattels claim. To succeed under Missouri law, the plaintiff must establish intentional dispossession or interference without justification and prove that the property was impaired in condition, quality, or value. The court determined that the record lacked evidence of any such impairment. Allegations that compaction “could” damage containers were insufficient because Republic presented no evidence of actual damage to any of its containers, no photographs, no inspection documents, and no expert testimony. The court also found that dispossession could not be established because Smash’s compaction activities lasted approximately fifteen minutes and occurred with the authorization of Republic’s customers, to whom Republic had contractually granted possession and control of the containers until haul-away. Because the customers authorized Smash to compact their own waste, any brief handling of the containers was legally justified and not a trespass.
The court also affirmed judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. Missouri law precludes unjust enrichment where an express contract governs the parties’ rights and obligations. Republic’s contracts with its customers governed control of the containers, while Smash’s contracts with those same customers governed the compaction services. Because any benefit conferred on Smash was conferred by customers—not Republic—the claim failed as a matter of law. The court also noted that Republic had contractual remedies against its customers for any alleged misuse of containers and could not bypass those remedies by asserting quasi-contract claims against the franchisee or franchisor.
Finally, the court emphasized that the franchisor—Smash Franchise Partners—could not be liable. The district court found no evidence that the franchisor took any action related to the alleged conduct or exercised operational control over the franchisee’s compaction activities. Republic did not challenge that ruling in its opening appellate brief, resulting in waiver. The appellate court therefore treated the franchisor’s dismissal as final and affirmed judgment in its favor.
Looking Forward
This ruling provides important lessons for franchisors and employers defending against creative business-tort theories. First, the decision illustrates the importance of maintaining clear contractual structures that allocate possession, control, and operational authority to franchisees or customers. When express contracts govern the relevant relationships, franchisors are well positioned to defeat unjust enrichment or implied-contract claims. Second, the court’s analysis underscores that franchisors are unlikely to face vicarious liability where they do not participate in or control the day-to-day operations underlying the alleged conduct. Documenting the franchisee’s autonomy remains a key strategic protection.
Third, the opinion demonstrates that plaintiffs who disclaim compensatory damages or fail to build a record of actual injury may lose access to a jury trial. The Eighth Circuit’s insistence on determinable and measurable damages provides a useful safeguard for franchisors and employers facing speculative claims. Fourth, the trespass-to-chattels analysis shows how courts assess possession, authorization, and actual property harm in commercial disputes involving leased equipment or shared property use. Where customers contract for services that involve handling a company’s equipment, the customer authorization may defeat tort theories at the outset.
Finally, while the facts in this case are unique and arise from a highly specialized compaction service, the broader principles translate across franchise systems: courts require proof, not speculation; they enforce the limits of an express franchise agreement; and they will not impose liability on a franchisor absent clear evidence of control. The ruling therefore offers a strong example of how franchisors can structure relationships and litigation strategies to minimize exposure to unconventional tort theories.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
