#Microman distributors florida free

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's termination, cancellation, failure to renew, or refusal to continue the franchise is without good cause as defined in subsections 563.022(7) and (10) of the Florida Statutes. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, after and despite the oral 2004 agreement, has entered into, or will likely enter into, a franchise or selling agreement with another distributor for the distribution of Defendant's beer to counties in Florida for which Plaintiff holds an exclusive distributorship. Plaintiff alleges that the oral November 2004 agreement constitutes a franchise as defined in section 563.022(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant requests that Plaintiff distribute beer in counties other than the 18 listed in the written amendments. With respect to all other counties in Florida not listed in the amendments, Plaintiff has sold and continues to sell beer imported by Defendant. For example, the written amendment of July 2008 creates an exclusive distributorship in Plaintiff granting Plaintiff the right in 18 Florida counties to purchase, resell, and distribute 11 listed beers. The amendments, each time, affected only 18 particular counties in Florida, and each created an exclusive distributorship in the counties named therein.

The oral agreement was amended on three different occasions in writing: on Jand February 3, 2010. In November 2004, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement by which Defendant agreed that Plaintiff would distribute beer imported by Defendant within the state of Florida. Defendant imports various brands of beer into Florida. Plaintiff is a licensed beer (malt beverage) wholesale distributor in Florida. The complaint alleges the following set of facts. 'Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.' Ashcroft v. The factual allegations must be 'enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.' Id., 550 U.S. The complaint must allege 'only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Bell Atl. of Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 1), and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied.Īll factual allegations of the complaint are considered true and all inferences from those facts will be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. After careful consideration of the motion, the allegations of the complaint (Dkt. BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt.Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.13) and Plaintiff's opposing Memorandum. 39), Louis Glunz Beer, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 49), and the corresponding responses (Dkts. Upon consideration, genuine issues of fact remain as to the reasonableness of Plaintiff's distribution efforts and whether Defendant's termination of the franchise was made in good faith. On February 20, 2013, Defendant Louis Glunz Beer, Inc. terminated the exclusive beer distribution franchise for the state of Florida assigned to Plaintiff Micro Man Distributors, Inc. Micro Man sued, alleging a violation of § 563.022, Florida Statutes, which governs the relationships between beer distributors and beer importers. The parties' actions and claims must be understood within the context of § 563.022. The statute is therefore reviewed first, and then the undisputed facts giving rise to this lawsuit are described. The Statutory Schemeīecause they can sell directly to consumers only in limited circumstances, importers and manufacturers of beer must assign distributors for their products. Distributors are entitled to an exclusive sales territory for each product imported.

The exclusive sales territory 'shall be embodied in a formal written agreement,' which must designate the brands for which the territory is granted and the exact geographical boundaries of the territory.

The Florida Legislature strictly regulates the relationship between importers and distributors of beer.

#Microman distributors florida free

Section 563.022, Florida Statutes, is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) ensure the distributor 'is free to manage its business enterprise' (2) ensure the distributor will 'devote reasonable efforts and resources to sales and distribution' of an importer's products and maintain a 'satisfactory' sales level and (3) establish and maintain an orderly system of beer distribution to the public.