A Florida federal court rejected personal jurisdiction and venue challenges brought by a former franchisee and his alleged co-conspirators, holding that Florida was the proper forum for claims arising from the breach of a post-termination noncompete agreement and the misuse of the franchisor’s trademarks and confidential information. The Filta Grp., Inc. v. LXU, Ltd., 2026 WL 2436644 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2026). The Filta Group sued its former franchisee, LXU, Ltd., and its principal, alleging that after the franchise relationship ended, they continued to use Filta’s trademarks and confidential information. Filta also sued a longtime employee of LXU and his newly formed competing company, Kitchen Kare Innovations, which served former franchise customers. In prior proceedings, the court had already found that a conspiracy existed between the defendants to infringe Filta’s trademarks and violate restrictive covenants in the franchise agreement. The defendants nevertheless challenged personal jurisdiction and sought to transfer the case to Ohio, where they were based, while Filta moved for summary judgment.
The court denied the motions. It held that specific personal jurisdiction existed over the franchisee defendants based on their extensive contacts with Florida stemming from their franchise relationship with the Florida-based franchisor. The court further held that jurisdiction extended to the nonsignatory defendants because they allegedly participated in a conspiracy to violate restrictive covenants, misappropriate confidential information, and infringe Filta’s trademarks, causing injury in Florida. The court also denied the request to transfer venue to Ohio, emphasizing the franchise agreement’s forum-selection clause, its familiarity with the case following a multi-day evidentiary hearing on Filta’s request for a preliminary injunction, and the inefficiencies that would result from transfer. Finally, the court denied summary judgment without prejudice, stating that its preferred course was to weigh the evidence at the scheduled bench trial.