Shelly Gopaul has been selected for inclusion in the July 2010 issue of Southern California Super Lawyers – Rising Stars Edition, based on her practice which focuses on business and franchise litigation. She represents franchisors on issues including trademark and trade secret infringement, contract disputes, unlawful detainer, ADA claims and class action lawsuits. Ms. Gopaul has successfully defended against claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and claims brought under the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701). Ms. Gopaul has prepared successful appellate briefs before the California Supreme Court, the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal and the California Court of Appeal.  She has prevailed on numerous motions for summary judgments, motions to dismiss and demurrers on behalf of her clients.  She drafts and argues motions, conducts depositions and mediations and participates in trials. During law school, Ms. Gopaul participated in the Hale Moot Court Honors Program.

Select Representations

• Duke v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc. et al., 2010 WL 4706093 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (California Court of Appeal affirms trial court's ruling denying class certification to a group of agency operators who claimed that, contrary to their contractual agreements with Avis and Budget, they were employees and not independent contractors under California law).
  Shakey's USA, Inc. v. Tutto's Pizza Corp. et al., 2009 WL 3211027 (E.D.Cal. 2009) and 2010 WL 14815 (E.D.Cal. 2010) (Permanent injunction and Lanham Act damages awarded to franchisor Shakey's where franchisee continued operating restaurant after the franchise agreement was terminated using Shakey's trademarks and trade secrets).
• Laney v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 2010 WL 723743 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (plaintiff's claims for race and gender discrimination, Family Medical Leave Act retaliation, wrongful termination and breach of contract dismissed due to plaintiff’s lack of standing)
• Stites v. Promus Hotel Corporation et al., 2009 WL 189413 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.) (affirmed trial court’s dismissal of action in favor of franchisor and affirmed cost award of $422,487.00 in favor of the defendants; petition for review denied by California Supreme Court)
• Dark v. Hilton Hotels Corp. et al., 2009 WL 4548351 (Ct. App. 2d Dist.), Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 14,296 (franchisor not vicariously liable for franchisee’s alleged negligence and violation of California’s Unruh Act because there was no evidence that the franchisee and its employees were actual or ostensible agents of the franchisor)
• Exposito v. Hilton Hotels Corp. et al., Bus Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 14,071 (LASC 2008) (granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and finding that a franchisor, its Chairman and its General Counsel were not liable for claims under California’s Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act and Business and Professions Code § 17200 based on the alleged wrongdoing of franchisee)
• Century Pacific, Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 354 Fed.Appx. 49 (2d. Cir. 2009) (Second Circuit affirms trial court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Hilton on franchisee's fraud claims arising from the sale of the Red Lion hotel chain)

Bar and Court Admissions

California, 2006

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Education

University of Southern California, J.D., 2006

Johns Hopkins University, B.A., 2003

Publications

• "Can A Franchisor Be Sued for 'Malpractice'?" Franchise Law News (Q3 2011), by Glenn Plattner and Shelly Gopaul