John A. Karol

John A. Karol joined the firm in 2010 and has been a partner since 2014.  Mr. Karol practices litigation, arbitration, mediation, franchise and intellectual property law and employment law.  Mr. Karol has litigated and arbitrated many franchise-related disputes, for both franchisees and franchisors.  Mr. Karol has worked with Mr. Rosen on a wide variety of franchise-related, commercial, trademark and intellectual property matters and has represented many employers and employees in various of employment related matters.  Mr. Karol has several significant reported decisions, including decisions concerning the NY Franchise Sales Act and its potential application against individual officers and directors, enforcement of arbitration provisions, and spoliation of evidence (ESI).  Mr. Karol graduated from Fordham Univ. School of Law in 2002 and is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, the 9th Cir., and the United States District Courts for the SDNY, EDNY, DNJ, DMI.  He is a member of the NYSBA (Business Law Section’s franchise committee), and the NYC Bar Association.

For Online Chapter:
LinkedIn URL: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-karol-3171427a/
University: Fordham Univ. School of Law
Degree type (LLB / LLM / PHD / Jurisprudence Doctor JD):  JD
Year graduated: 2002
Any key Supervisors (LLM MPhil / PHD):
Significant Clients or cases (list up to 10 clients):

Clients (Franchise-Related):

1. Sottocasa Franchising, LLC (franchisor: franchise formation and associated advisory services).
2. Seniors Helping Seniors, LLC (franchisor: lead litigation counsel on multiple matters, general litigation advisory).
3. Schwartzco Enterprises, LLC (former multi-unit developer and franchisee, lead litigation counsel on multiple matters in federal and bankruptcy courts).
4. Daniel Voehringer (former top producing RE/MAX franchisee, litigation in both NJ State Courts and arbitration).
5. Tilden International, Inc. (franchisor: resolved litigation matters for franchisor, including federal action).
6. Denco Enterprises, LLC and Marwah Family (multi-unit franchisee owner, litigated several issues on their behalf, as well as engaging in associated representation concerning liquor license, community board issues, concerns with landlord, and concerns with construction contractors and GC).
7. Related Assets LLC (d/b/a RE/MAX Metro) and Calabrese Family (lead litigation counsel for former RE/MAX Franchisee in ongoing multifaceted litigation against franchisor).
8. DTP Graphics Partners, LLC, “SpeedPro” Franchisor’s Master Developer for the State of Florida (“DTP Graphics”) (lead litigation counsel representing area developer and franchisee in ongoing dispute with franchisor).

Cases: 

1. Schwartzco Enterprises, LLC et al. v. TMH Management, LLC, 60 F. Supp. 3d 331; 2:14-cv-1082-ADS-GRB (U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y., 2014) (inter alia finding that principal of franchisor could be individually liable under the New York Franchise Sales Act, both as a “control person” who materially aided in the acts, and “merely by virtue of their position in an entity liable for the violations”)
2. Planetarium Travel, Inc. v. American Express Travel, 600794/2010 (N.Y. Sup. 4/4/2011, entered 7/29/11) (successfully represented former American Express Travel franchisee to favorable resolution, and in decision of note, franchisee’s promissory estoppel claim and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing survived motion to dismiss, and franchisor’s application for preliminary injunction to protect trademark was denied); 
3. American Express Marketing & Development Corp. v. Planet Amex and Blake Fleetwood, NAF Arbitration, Claim No. FA1106001395159 (successfully defended former franchisee’s domain name “planetamex.com” from seizure under ICANN UDRP proceeding because inter alia franchisor AMEX had acquiesced by resting on its rights).
4. DiStefano et al. v. Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC et al, 2:11-cv-02893-AKT (USDC EDNY) (successfully represented former Cold Stone Creamery franchisee against his prior counsel in a malpractice action, of significant note are several federal discovery decisions, including against franchisee’s former counsel for destruction of evidence, destruction of hard drives, and spoliation, resulting in significant monetary sanctions) (See 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47031 (cited by 2d Cir. in Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121215); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47036, Mar. 29, 2013 Decision (finding duty to preserve evidence); 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72137, May 10, 2017 (decision sanctioning attorney for destruction of evidence / spoliation of ESI on hard drives)).
5. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Cindy Kilman et al., 2:11-cv-01192-MEA (USDC DC Ariz., Oct. 26, 2011) (successfully represented franchisee in confirming arbitration award, and enjoining franchisor from enforcing arbitration provision that required an additional “appeal” process within arbitration, as both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, as well as beyond the reasonable expectations of the parties).
6. RE/MAX of New Jersey, Inc. v. Daniel Voehringer et al., BUR-L-400-16 (Sup. Ct. NJ, Burlington, June 24, 2016 (successfully compelled arbitration of certain claims that franchisor was attempting to deem non-arbitrable and litigate in state court, when franchisee wished to proceed with claims in arbitration).
7. The Board of Managers of the 150 Nassau Condominium v. Spruce NYC LLC, Rahul Marwah and Denco Enterprises, LLC, 155170/2013 (NY Sup., 2013) (on behalf of Multi-unit Denny’s franchisee, successfully litigated to amicable resolution attempts by condo board to bar opening of the Denny’s location in the subject building, and coordinated with franchisor and franchisor’s PR unit in high-profile case).
8. Seniors Helping Seniors, LLC v. Weisenberger, 1:08-cv-0763-RGA (USDC Dist. DE) (successfully represented franchisor in litigating matter to favorable resolution).
9. Goldman v. Seniors Helping Seniors, LLC et al, 3:14-cv-4206-FLW-DEA (USDC, Dist. DNJ 2015) (successfully represented franchisor in removing action from state court to federal court, then successfully litigating matter to favorable resolution).