Jay concentrates his litigation and counseling practice principally in the areas of:

  • Antitrust law
  • Franchise law
  • Trade Regulation law
  • Dealer law
  • Sales Representative law
  • Distribution law
  • Non-compete agreements

Jay has more than 30 years of experience in these practice areas. Over the years, Jay has handled numerous arbitrations and litigation cases on behalf of franchisors, franchisees, manufacturers, distributors and dealers. He has substantial experience working with the Minnesota Franchise Act, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the Minnesota Sales Representative Act, the Minnesota Heavy and Utility Equipment Manufacturers and Dealers Act and various other state franchise and dealer laws. Jay has managed cases on a national scope, including matters venued in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington.

In addition to litigation services, Jay provides regular counseling and guidance to franchisors, manufacturers and employers regarding various legal aspects of their business. Such counseling includes guidance as to the application of, and compliance with, state and federal statutory requirements; contractual interpretation, amendment, drafting and construction; and distribution restrictions and requirements. Jay has extensive experience working with various industries including, hair care products and services; bath and body works products; motor vehicles; power sport vehicles; recreational vehicles; ATVs; snowmobiles; boats; vessels; marine products; hotels; food services; ice cream stores; medical products; commodities; delivery services; agricultural equipment; used sports equipment; computer equipment/services; card printing equipment; and footwear.

Jay regularly provides antitrust counseling and litigation support to many of his clients. The antitrust areas for which he has provided counseling and litigation support include: Robinson- Patman issues; Section 1 of the Sherman Act pertaining to agreements in restraint of trade; Section 2 of the Sherman Act pertaining to claims regarding monopolization and attempts to monopolize; collaboration among competitors; MAP issues; and minimum and maximum resale price issues.

Jay has had significant experience in litigation, and providing counseling for, the enforcement and interpretation of non-compete agreements, both in the employment and in the business/franchise context.

While in law school, Jay was a member of the Notre Dame Law Review.


  • BTI Client Service All-Star, (February 2011, February 2013)

  • Honoree, Rising Star, Minnesota Super Lawyers

All Service Areas


  • University of Notre Dame Law School (1989)

    cum laude

  • Mankato State University (1986)



  • State - Minnesota
  • Federal - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Federal - 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Federal - District of Minnesota

Notable Matters


  • Obtained dismissal of claimants’ charges of discrimination based on sex/pregnancy under Massachusetts and federal law. (Houle v. Great Clips, Inc. et. al – 16C-2014-00670; Richey vs. Great Clips, Inc., et. al – 16C 2014-00673)
  • Obtained dismissal of plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment, retaliatory harassment and constructive discharge under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Reader v. Great Clips, Inc. et al
  • Obtained preliminary injunction enforcing non-compete provision and a final arbitration award dismissing franchisee's counterclaims for violations of Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska franchise laws, common law fraud, negligent fraud and breach of contract. Also obtained award of unpaid royalties/fees, plus incurred costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, for franchisor.
  • Defended company in franchise investigation conducted by Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  • Obtained AAA arbitration award dismissing franchisee's claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of the California Franchise Investment Law and Unfair Business Practices Act. Also obtained award of incurred costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, for franchisor. XOMSA Corp. And Alex Kohani v. Great Clips, Inc.
  • Obtained TRO enforcing post-term non-compete provision against franchisee.
  • Obtained dismissal on summary judgment of franchisee's claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with prospective business advantage, interference with contractual relations and violations of the Minnesota Franchise Act.
  • Regularly represent franchisors in connection with the filing and updating of franchise disclosure documents and registration materials on a state-by-state basis.
  • Handled, defeated and resolved claims under the Minnesota Franchise Act, the California Franchise Investment Law, the Connecticut Franchise Act, the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, the Iowa Franchise Investment Act, the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act and the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law.


  • Obtained summary judgment in arbitration dismissing claims under the Michigan Franchise Investment Law. Grand Bay Marine v. Four Winns Boats, L.L.C.
  • Assisted clients in complex registration process for obtaining manufacturing, sales representative and dealer licenses in connection with marine products in Louisiana.
  • Obtained arbitration award for monetary damages for breach of dealer contract and an award of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration, including attorney fees. Four Winns Boats, L.L.C. n.k.a. Genmar Michigan, L.L.C. v. Navalship
  • Obtained order compelling out-of-state arbitration regarding dealer termination matter and staying lawsuit pending completion of arbitration. Sun Country Marine v. Wood Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al 
  • Regularly counsels worldwide manufacturer of recreational vehicles regarding compliance with motor and recreational vehicle dealer laws throughout the United States.
  • Extensive experience counseling and handling claims as lead counsel for manufacturer under the Minnesota Heavy Utility Equipment Dealers Act. Lead counsel for manufacturer in Midwest Great Dane Trailers Inc. v. Great Dane Ltd. Partnership, 977 F.Supp. 1386
  • Obtained numerous arbitration awards for monetary damages for breach of dealer contracts and awards of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with the arbitrations.
  • Assisted clients in collection of payments due from dealers in connection with the purchase and sale of products produced by the manufacturer.


  • Obtained summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability, and an award of costs and expenses.
  • Obtained arbitration award from the National Cottonseed Products Association for breach of contract and an award of damages. Commodity Specialists Company v. Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing.
  • Obtained preliminary injunction enforcing non-compete agreement and trade secrets provision in consulting agreement. VEC Technology, L.L.C. v. Acrylon Plastics, Inc.
  • Defended non-compete action in which plaintiff sought injunction preventing continued employment by competitor through enforcement of non-compete clause contained in employment agreement. Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland, 537 N.W.3d 291
  • Obtained TRO, preliminary injunction and ultimately a stipulation for entry of permanent injuctive relief against former employee enforcing post-term contractual obligations, including non-compete, non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions. Commodities Specialists Company v. Brummet

Speeches and Publications

  • "Assessing a Franchisor's Obligations to Preserve Electronically Stored Information," LJN's Franchising Business & Law Alert, Nov. 1, 2012.
  • "The Establishment Clause and Justice Scalia: What the Future Holds for Church and State," Author, 63 Notre Dame Law Rev. 380, April 15, 1990.
  • "Constitutional Law—Britton v. South Bend Community School Corporation:  Do Affirmative Action Layoff Plans that Create an Absolute Racial Preference Violate Equal Protection Per Se," Co-Author, 63 Notre Dame Law Rev. 10, April 15, 1990.

Professional Affiliations

  • American Bar Association


  • Hennepin County Bar Association


  • Minnesota State Bar Association