In Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Oksendahl, 2008 WL 835681 (D. Minn. March 27, 2008), the court awarded attorneys’ fees to a franchisor that prevailed on a motion for preliminary injunction against a former franchisee. Gray Plant Mooty represented the franchisor. The parties’ franchise agreement provided that the “prevailing party” on a motion for injunctive relief would be awarded its attorneys’ fees. Relying on that language, the franchisor sought an award of fees from the court. The franchisee claimed, however, that it actually was the prevailing party, as the court had not awarded the franchisor all the relief sought through its motion for preliminary injunction. The franchisee claimed that the court must determine who was the prevailing party under Idaho law, not under the definition supplied by the contract.
The court rejected the franchisee’s argument and found the franchisor to be the prevailing party as defined by the franchise agreement. The court found that the parties’ contract unambiguously defined the phrase “prevailing party” as the party that obtained injunctive relief. The court declined the franchisee’s request to interpret Idaho law to trump the parties’ clear contractual intent. The court did, however, reduce the amount of fees awarded to the franchisor to reflect the court’s previous decision to grant only a portion of the injunctive relief sought.