Brava Salon Specialists, LLC v. REF North America, Inc.
3:22-cv-00695
W.D. Wis.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Brava Salon Specialists, a Wisconsin-based distributor, alleges that REF North America (REF NA) and REF International AB breached a distributor agreement and violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL) by allowing competing online sales in Brava's exclusive territory and by unilaterally changing sales policies.
- The case is set for jury trial in April 2025, with Brava pursuing claims for breach of contract, violation of WFDL, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- REF NA, the North American subsidiary, filed counterclaims citing Brava’s alleged breaches of the agreement.
- Motions in limine from both parties addressed the admissibility of certain evidence and testimony, pretrial procedures, and trial structure.
- A preliminary injunction previously ordered REF NA to honor Brava's exclusive territorial rights and prevent competing online sales in certain states.
- The court's rulings address both sides' attempts to limit or shape the evidence and issues presented to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclude or limit late-disclosed witnesses | Testimony from last-minute disclosed and irrelevant witnesses should be excluded or strictly limited | Witnesses' testimony is relevant to central claims/defenses and properly disclosed | Court reserves on limitation, but prohibits introduction of documents not timely produced |
| Exclude evidence of payment disputes | Payment disputes are irrelevant and not pleaded | Agrees evidence is irrelevant, unless opposing party opens the door | Motion granted but may be revisited if the issue is raised |
| Exclude hearsay | Certain testimony anticipated will be inadmissible hearsay | Hearsay will not be offered for the truth, but for effect on listener; motion too general | Court reserves, case-by-case rulings at trial or pretrial |
| Exclude evidence from last-day discovery or new claims | Opposes reliance on last-minute changes in discovery or undisclosed documents | Evidentiary shifts justified by developments; entitled to present systemwide changes as defense/counterclaim | Excludes truly last-minute/new evidence but permits systemwide, nondiscriminatory change defense |
| Judicial notice of conceded or waived facts | Certain facts are judicially admitted or conceded | Facts are not formal admissions, remain disputed issues | Denied; fact disputes for jury unless evidence at trial eliminates disputes |
| Exclude evidence on damages not timely disclosed | Only damages disclosed in discovery can be referenced at trial | Confirms only declaratory/injunctive relief sought, with one late claim for broader damages | Only previously disclosed damages allowed (with offset); late damages claims excluded |
| Exclude contradiction of judicial admissions | REF NA has judicially admitted authorizing online sales | No clear, unequivocal judicial admission exists | Denied; factual questions for jury |
| Preclude contesting existence of Wisconsin/Minnesota dealership | REF NA conceded WFDL applies to dealership | WFDL protections are geographically limited | WFDL applies to WI, MN, ND, and IA only; outside that, no WFDL claim allowed |
| Preclude empty chair defense | REF NA cannot blame REF Int’l, who hasn't appeared | REF Int’l not properly served; empty chair defense allowed | Prohibited; REF NA cannot use empty chair defense |
| Sequestration of non-party witnesses | Only party reps should be present; others sequestered | Agrees with sequestration, party reps named | Granted; each side may designate one party rep |
| Exclude damages for Florida property | Brava can't claim damages for Florida property as only Brava Destination LLC owned it | Lease & investments were made in reliance on REF NA’s representations | Allowed; Brava's evidence of reliance damages for Florida admissible |
| Exclude lay valuation of business | Marcks shouldn’t testify to business value as non-expert | Owner can offer lay opinion value of own business | Allowed; Marcks can testify to business value |
| Exclude parole evidence for territory scope | Parole evidence inadmissible to determine "Territory" when contract unambiguous | Agrees, not contesting Florida as under contract | Moot; not at issue at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- East Bay Running Store, Inc. v. NIKE, 890 F.2d 996 (7th Cir. 1989) (system-wide policy changes usually not considered a 'substantial change in competitive circumstances' under WFDL)
- Morley-Murphy Co. v. Zenith Electronics Corp., 142 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1998) (WFDL’s applicability and geographic scope discussed in distributor context)
- Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194 (7th Cir. 1995) (defines judicial admissions and their binding effect)
- D’Huyvetter v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., 164 Wis. 2d 306 (Ct. App. 1991) (owner can give lay opinion on value of property)
- Von Der Ruhr v. Immtech International, Inc., 570 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2009) (owner of established business may testify as to value based on participation and knowledge)