Legal Battle Over Slim Chickens and RSolution
A legal dispute between Slim Chickens and RSolution has taken a new turn as the fast-food chain attempts to have the plaintiff’s attorney removed from the case. This move has sparked controversy and resistance from RSolution, which claims the effort is an attempt to undermine its legal representation.
Slim Chickens filed a motion to disqualify Marshall Ney, the attorney representing RSolution, from the ongoing lawsuit. The restaurant’s argument hinges on a conflict of interest, citing that it has been a long-time client of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, the law firm that represents Ney. According to the motion, the firm has served as legal counsel for Slim Chickens in numerous business and legal matters for over two decades.
However, RSolution responded with a detailed filing on July 18, arguing that the motion fails on multiple grounds. First, RSolution asserts that Slim Chickens is no longer a client of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, which would invalidate any claim of a conflict under the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Additionally, RSolution contends that Slim Chickens has not demonstrated how a previous court case is relevant to the current one. The company emphasizes that the two cases involve entirely different parties, timeframes, transactions, and legal theories.
RSolution further argues that Slim Chickens is attempting to burden the plaintiff and deprive it of its chosen counsel, rather than genuinely protecting confidential information. The company believes this move is an obstruction tactic meant to delay or derail the lawsuit.
Allegations Against Slim Chickens
The lawsuit, filed by RSolution in June, accuses Slim Chickens of deceptive advertising practices. Specifically, RSolution claims that the restaurant falsely promotes certain dipping sauces as “house-made” when they are actually manufactured and distributed by third-party suppliers. The company also alleges that Slim Chickens misrepresents its food as “fresh,” even though it arrives at stores frozen.
According to the lawsuit, Slim Chickens has reported an Average Unit Volume (AUV) of $3.8 million for its “Group 1” stores. However, RSolution claims that the company used data from 14 out of 66 stores to inflate this number. The company also states that it has invested more than $15 million in Slim Chickens, helping to expand the brand into states like Illinois, Missouri, and Kentucky. RSolution argues that this investment would not have occurred if the company had been transparent about its operations.
Slim Chickens’ Response
In response to the allegations, Slim Chickens has asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it is an attempt to shift blame for the poor performance of some stores. The restaurant also points to agreements signed between the parties that allegedly prevent RSolution from filing such a lawsuit.
Court documents filed on July 3 argue that the initial complaint lacks specific facts and does not present a valid claim against Slim Chickens. The documents also reference an agreement signed by both parties that includes language releasing Slim Chickens from the claims made by RSolution.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of corporate disputes and the importance of transparency in business practices. As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the court’s decision and how it may impact the future of both companies.
