November 17, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
November 17, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Jerry Edwards, Jr. granted summary judgment in favor of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (“PLKI”) after determining that the franchisor bore no responsibility for injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained at a Popeyes restaurant in Rayville, Louisiana. The Court explained that PLKI asserted it was merely the franchisor and that the Rayville location was independently owned and operated by A&M Operating Co., Inc. The plaintiff did not dispute the franchisor–franchisee structure or submit evidence challenging PLKI’s declaration that A&M exercised exclusive control over the restaurant. The Court found PLKI’s position consistent with established precedents holding that franchisors are not liable for injuries occurring on franchisee premises or for the conduct of franchisee employees. The Court therefore dismissed the claims against PLKI. The Court also dismissed the remainder of the case, including claims against municipal defendants, based on the plaintiff’s repeated refusals to appear for deposition and her failure to comply with court orders.
Relevant Background
According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged she was injured at a Popeyes restaurant in Rayville, Louisiana. She asserted claims against the Town of Rayville, police officers, and PLKI. The Court described PLKI’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that PLKI was not the proper defendant because the Rayville Popeyes was operated by A&M Operating Co., Inc., an independent franchisee. The Court stated that PLKI submitted a declaration from its counsel explaining the franchisor–franchisee relationship and attesting that A&M maintained exclusive control over the operation, staffing, and maintenance of the restaurant.
The Court explained that the plaintiff filed multiple briefs but did not dispute the existence of the franchise relationship or offer evidence contradicting PLKI’s showing that A&M alone controlled the Rayville location. Instead, the plaintiff suggested that PLKI was merely an “old name” for A&M or that A&M represented “new owners,” without presenting supporting evidence. The Court found that the plaintiff did not challenge the substance of PLKI’s declaration or otherwise dispute that the Rayville Popeyes was independently owned and operated.
In addition, the Court addressed motions to dismiss filed by municipal defendants. The Court noted that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, failed to appear for her deposition despite court orders, and failed to appear at the hearing on the pending motions. The Court noted that the plaintiff had offered explanations involving concerns about abduction or assassination, which the Court found unsupported. The opinion states that the plaintiff exhibited a pattern of refusing to participate in litigation, including in a prior matter dismissed by the Fifth Circuit for similar conduct.
Decision
The Court granted PLKI’s motion for summary judgment. The Court stated that franchisors are not liable for the alleged acts of franchisee employees and are not responsible for the condition of franchisee premises. The Court cited decisions from the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana, including Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. and Monk v. Choice Hotels International Services, Corp., for the principle that franchisors are not generally answerable for the injuries plaintiffs sustain at franchise locations when franchisees maintain operational control. The Court observed that PLKI’s declaration established A&M Operating Co.’s exclusive control over the Rayville Popeyes and that the plaintiff failed to contest those facts. Because the plaintiff presented no evidence creating a genuine dispute, the Court concluded that PLKI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court separately granted the municipal defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court found that the plaintiff’s repeated refusal to appear for deposition, failure to comply with multiple court orders, and failure to participate in the litigation constituted contumacious conduct warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) and Rule 41(b). The Court observed that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a plaintiff shows deliberate resistance to authority and noted the plaintiff’s similar conduct in other litigation. The Court therefore dismissed the remaining claims.
Looking Forward
This decision illustrates several considerations relevant to franchisors while remaining grounded in the specific facts of the case. The Court’s reasoning highlights how documentary evidence establishing the franchisor–franchisee relationship and confirming franchisee operational independence can be dispositive at the summary judgment stage. Under different facts or in other jurisdictions, courts may examine these issues differently, but the opinion reflects a consistent judicial approach in which franchisors are not held liable for day-to-day operations or conditions at independently owned franchise locations when franchisees maintain exclusive control.
The opinion also underscores the importance for franchisors of maintaining clear contractual and operational delineations. The declaration submitted by PLKI, which the plaintiff did not rebut, emphasized that the franchisee—not the franchisor—controlled staffing, maintenance, employee supervision, and other core aspects of restaurant operations. This type of evidentiary clarity may assist franchisors in resolving disputes efficiently and avoiding prolonged litigation over issues outside their control.
Finally, the Court’s dismissal of the claims against other defendants for failure to comply with litigation obligations serves as a reminder that procedural adherence remains essential in federal cases. Although that portion of the ruling does not relate specifically to franchising, the Court’s enforcement of procedural rules reinforces the importance of structured litigation management and compliance throughout the life of a dispute.
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.
