 The first indication of the franchises'displeasure with their parent over this issue came in 2005 and involved claims by a Manhattan-based franchise that the company failed to take into account local market conditions when setting prices. E-Z Eating Corp., operator of five restaurants in New York and owned by brother-sister partners Elizabeth and Luan Sadik, had been struggling after the 9 / 11 terrorist attacks but had been in a company-sponsored turn around program when Burger King started its new value program in 2006. The program required all locations to carry a specific set of products at a discounted price, with limited exemptions for certain locations that met a set of criteria. The Sadiks applied for an exemption to the pricing requirement but were turned down by Burger King. In response to the denial, the Sadiks closed two of their locations without consulting Burger King and refused to implement the scheme in their other two locations. Burger King responded by suing the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for breach of contract, and eventually revoked the franchise agreement for the remaining two locations in January 2006. The Sadik's responded by filing their own lawsuit in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that Burger King had engaged in a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair in its actions towards the franchise. The actions were eventually consolidated in a single case in the Southern District Court under Judge Maricia G. Cooke, where Burger King requested and was granted a summary judgement against the Sadiks. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in June 2009.
