Manpower compensated Maryland Staffing by paying it a percentage of Maryland Staffing's gross profit. Under the terms of this agreement (which was renewed in 1976, 1978, 19), Maryland Staffing was given exclusive rights to use the corporate name and resources of Manpower and to engage in the business of providing temporary workers to customers under the corporate authority of Manpower in the State of Maryland. (Maryland Staffing) entered into a franchise agreement with defendant Manpower, Inc. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19 of the complaint will be dismissed.Īccording to the complaint, plaintiff Maryland Staffing Services, Inc. Instead, they have chosen a more narrowly focused approach and have asked the Court to dismiss each and every count of the complaint for reasons specific to each. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir. The defendants might have moved to dismiss the entire prolix complaint on the ground that it fails to include a " short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Federal Rule 8(a) (2). American Cablevision, Inc., 77 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir. A rifle would have provided a better model. In crafting their lawsuit against the defendants, the plaintiffs have chosen the shotgun approach they have filed an 84-page, 231-paragraph, nineteen-count complaint. This case involves a commercial dispute over the appropriate rates of insurance to be charged by a franchisor to a franchisee. Levit, Jr., Godfrey & Kahn, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants. ![]() Szoke, Monica & Szoke, Far Hills, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Katte, Joseph Long, Milt Berland, Gil Palay, John Does 1-4, et al., Defendants. MARYLAND STAFFING SERVICES, INC., John Chandonnet, Nancy Chandonnet, Plaintiffs,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |