Franchise Litigation Practice

Charles S. Johnson, III, has practiced extensively in the areas of regulatory and administrative law, antitrust and commercial litigation. Much of his litigation practice has involved dealer terminations and relationships between franchisors and franchisees.

Automobile Industry

Mr. Johnson’s practice has included extensive representation of a leading automobile manufacturer in defending a number of claims brought by dealers under the Sherman Act and the Automobile Dealer Day in Court Act. Some of these claims have arisen from suits originally brought by the dealers, and some of them have arisen in the context of counterclaims brought by dealers, following the initiation of collection actions by related floor-plan lenders.

Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Rogers-Farmer Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga. Mr. Johnson participated in the successful defense of the fraud, contract, antitrust and Dealer Day in Court counterclaims, including a trial before the late Judge Newell Edenfield.

Joe Westbrook v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga. Mr. Johnson participated in the defense of the dealer’s shareholder derivative, contract, antitrust and Dealer Day in Court claims. Following the grant of a partial summary judgment (419 F. Supp. 824 (1976)), the case was successfully tried before Judge Charles Moye.

Lenox Dodge and Hayes Chrysler-Plymouth Litigation, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga. Mr. Johnson successfully litigated a number of antitrust/Dealer Day in Court cases involving troubled dealership locations in Roswell, Georgia and in the Buckhead section of Atlanta.

Perez v. Dodge World of Roswell, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga. Mr. Johnson secured a summary judgment in favor of the auto manufacturer in this antitrust/Dealer Day in Court action involving a dealership in Roswell, Georgia.

Restaurant Industry

Mr. Johnson has represented a national quick-service restaurant chain in connection with the termination of several of its franchisees. He has also served as counsel to a number of restaurant franchisees.

Petroleum Industry

In Grady Roberts v. Chevron USA, Inc., U.S.D.C., N.D. Ga., an oil company declined to renew its agreements with a dealer in Dallas, Georgia. The non-renewed dealer sued, claiming that the oil company had violated a provision of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”) which requires the oil company to give the non-renewed retailer an opportunity to purchase the dealership premises. Mr. Johnson successfully defended against the dealer’s motion for summary judgment, securing what was probably the first decision by any court in the Eleventh Circuit holding that the nation’s environmental policy must be considered in construing the provisions of the PMPA. As the dealership premises were potentially contaminated, the court determined that the oil company was not required to sell the property and thereby expose itself to liability to subsequent owners and others arising from that contamination.