Safaei v. IHOP
Plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant Ali Safaei appeals from judgment following the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, cross-complainants and respondents IHOP Corp., IHOP Properties, Inc., and International House of Pancakes, Inc.[1] (referred to collectively as IHOP). Safaei contends: (1) IHOP did not establish that the parties' franchise agreement was automatically terminated as a matter of law, and he was not required to tender franchise fees when IHOP refused to perform; (2) IHOP failed to give him an opportunity to cure; (3) he produced evidence establishing his performance or the excuse of his contractual obligations; (4) material factual issues exist regarding IHOP's duty of good faith and fair dealing; (5) IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his equitable claims; and (6) IHOP was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his claim for unfair business practices. Court conclude that no triable issues of fact exist, and Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on Safaei v. IHOP