A Darden Restaurants lawsuit against the parent company of Olive Garden is about to get into court. The dispute centers on the franchisor’s plan to sell restaurants to independent operators.

According to a Darden Restaurants lawsuit, the parent company of Olive Garden has an agreement with a franchisor.

That arrangement gives the parent company control of the Olive Garden franchise, and a say in the management of the restaurant, including the hiring of employees. The parent company has the right to pick the owners of the restaurants, but it doesn’t have the right to hire them. That means that Darden can fire all employees if it feels the management is not doing a good job.

The parent company doesn’t have any obligation to do that, however, since the franchise is for its own employees.

It can take away money or property from an owner that it deems is misusing the restaurant, or putting undue pressure on employees to perform sub-par work. The parent company will also be able to sue the owners of the restaurants for damages, and can ask a judge to take control of those restaurants.

The parent company of Olive Garden is not happy with this arrangement.

According to the lawsuit, it says that it is owed more money by the parent company because of the arrangement. The parent company is demanding back the money it spent to buy up the franchises, and it’s threatening to take away ownership of the restaurants altogether.

The attorney general is defending Olive Garden in court against these claims.

He says the parent company is making its complaint because it doesn’t want to continue dealing with the franchisor or the owners of the franchises.

Legal experts say that Darden should be careful when negotiating agreements with other people.

For one thing, the parent company of the restaurant can always sue the franchisees for breach of contract, as well as for a breach of contract by the owners. In addition, a franchise agreement can’t include a provision that makes it possible for a parent company to sue an independent restaurant for breach of contract by the independent owners. If a judge rules against Darden in this case, the franchise agreement would be void.

Another point is that it’s not clear who the parents think they are in a case such as this.

In this case, the parent company says that the independent owners of the restaurant don’t really belong to the restaurant at all, that they are there by lease or for business purposes. and therefore not owners of the restaurant. However, the restaurant itself says that they do own the restaurant, which would mean they would be able to sue the independent owners for breach of contract by them.

It’s hard to imagine how any judge will see things this way, though, especially when the parents of the restaurant have sued the independent restaurants themselves.

If Darden wins its lawsuit, it might force the owners to stop using the franchise agreements and instead own the restaurants.

The judge will also have to consider Darden’s contention that it is owed a fair share of compensation by the parent company.

If the judge rules against Darden, it could result in Darden paying more than it has to pay, since it is owed more by the parent company. If the judge rules in favor of the parent company, it could mean that Darden is right, and that the restaurant should not be held responsible for paying back any of the money it spent on the restaurant’s purchase, but also that the parents should be liable.

It might also result in Darden losing its entire lawsuit and getting nothing if the parents win.

The case is going to trial on April 8, so it could drag on until next summer.

At this point, it’s difficult to predict what a judge is likely to do about the Darden case.

Even though Darden says it’s a tough case, some of the arguments the restaurant makes are pretty serious and seem like they could work.

It’s clear that both parents of the restaurant are trying to protect their business from competition from independent restaurants.

They’re not saying that they don’t own a restaurant, only that the competition is unfair. So if a lawsuit is brought, they will have a very strong case. If they lose, it could put more pressure on independent restaurants to come up with some kind of agreement that satisfies both parties.