defendants had at that time under the franchise agreement. Upon discovering defendants’ underreporting scheme, however, plaintiff served defendants with a notice of termination at which time defendants’ rights under the franchise agreement were extinguished. It is undisputed that plaintiff had terminated the franchise agreement long before defendants had submitted the purported transfer to plaintiff for its approval. At that point in time when defendants attempted to transfer the franchise, in May of 1998, the Court finds that defendants had “no right to continue operating the franchise or to transfer it for value.” Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc. v. Middletown Donut Corp., 100 N.J. 166, 495 A.2d 66, 72 (1985); see also KFC Corp. v. Goldey, 714 F.Supp. 264, 266 (W.D.Ky. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Court finds that defendants’
holding age discrimination claim barred holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman recognizing that although civil conspiracy is a separate actionable tort a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations holding disability discrimination claim barred holding that franchisee is barred from selling a terminated franchise agreement