Traumann

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

Introduction

This is an action arising out of defendant’s disqualification of plaintiffs during training to become 7-Eleven convenience store franchisees. Plaintiffs seek relief for breach of the franchise agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tor-tious interference and certain claims under California’s franchise laws. Defendant moves for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiffs’ contract claims are barred by the parol evidence rule, that the implied covenant claims fail because defendant was genuinely dissatisfied with the Traumanns as franchisees, that the interference claims must be dismissed because defendant’s disqualification of the Traumanns was justified, and that plaintiffs statutory claims must be dismissed under contract law.

Background

On July 19, 1993, this Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s first motion for summary judgment which focused on plaintiffs’ claims that they had been irrevocably accepted as franchisees before they had started the training course. 842 F.Supp. 386 . The Court, applying the parol evidence rule, excluded all evidence of…