The moving party, a franchisor based in India, sought injunctive and mandatory relief against its franchisee and the franchisee's operating principal, including an order for documentary productions, payment of outstanding royalties and an exit fee, a Mareva injunction freezing all defendants' assets, and ancillary examination orders.
The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.
The request for documentary productions was premature as affidavits of documents had not yet been exchanged and discoveries had not been conducted.
For monetary relief, the court applied the higher strong prima facie case threshold, which the moving party failed to meet given serious disputed issues concerning personal liability of the individual defendant, royalty rate reductions, and the definition of "net sales." No irreparable harm was established as the franchise had ceased operations and any brand damage was compensable in damages.
The balance of convenience weighed heavily against granting relief that would amount to execution before judgment.
The Mareva injunction was denied for absence of any evidence of risk of asset dissipation.
The court characterized the motion as frivolous and vexatious, relevant to the assessment of costs.