FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

1-800-radiator litigation history

What 1-800-radiator disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 7; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

No litigation against 1-800-Radiator itself. Item 3 discloses 5 pending securities/derivative actions against parent Driven Brands Holdings and its officers (Genesee, Terwilliger, Gaiman, Kalimon, Bushansky - all alleging failure to disclose info resulting in misstatements about Driven Brands Holdings business/prospects), plus a Maaco franchisee breach-of-contract suit (PJC Management) against affiliate Maaco/Driven Brands/Driven Systems, and historical settled affiliate actions (ARG/Arby's no-poach, Dunkin' no-poach and NY data breach settlements). None allege wrongdoing by 1-800-Radiator or affect the brand directly.

Item 3 (litigation) · 7 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (1)

Independent Association of Radiator Franchisees, Inc., et. al. v. 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc., et. al.
dismissed
Brought by a franchisee · 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc. (RFI), the former franchisor, together with its affiliate 1-800-RADIATOR & A/C Corporation · filed 2014-07-29 · American Arbitration Association · 01-14-0001-0767
“filed a demand for arbitration against RFI and A/C Corporation demanding (i) that RFI and A/C Corporation immediately discontinue certain acts and practices alleged therein; (ii) return of allegedly improperly collected fees and charges, plus interest, (iii) compensatory, exemplary, consequential and punitive damages, plus interest”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 26, 2014, the AAA dismissed the Independent Association of Radiator Franchisees, Inc. for failure to identify an arbitration agreement with RFI or A/C Corporation and bifurcated the existing franchisees”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 2 proceedings
- 1-800-Radiator of San Francisco, Inc. v. 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc., et. al.
  settled
  Brought by a franchisee · names a predecessor · 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc. (RFI), the former franchisor, together with its affiliate 1-800-RADIATOR & A/C Corporation · filed 2014-09-05 · American Arbitration Association · 01-14-0001-4741
  “the San Francisco Franchisee filed its individual bifurcated arbitration demand against RFI and A/C Corporation (1-800-Radiator of San Francisco, Inc. v. 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc., et. al.; American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-14-0001-4741) alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “On August 14, 2015, the parties settled the dispute with the San Francisco Franchisee, whereby (i) the arbitration was dismissed with prejudice without any fees and costs to any party, (ii) the parties provided mutual general releases, and (iii) RFI agreed to take no steps to terminate the franchise”
- Diane McKay d/b/a 1-800-Radiator of Fairfield, Inc. v. 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc., et. al.
  settled
  Brought by a franchisee · names a predecessor · 1-800-Radiator Franchise, Inc. (RFI), the former franchisor, together with its affiliate 1-800-RADIATOR & A/C Corporation · filed 2014-09-05 · American Arbitration Association · 01-14-0001-0767 (same AAA case number as the Independent Association demand)
  “On September 5, 2014, the Fairfield Franchisee filed her individual bifurcated arbitration demand against RFI and A/C Corporation (Diane McKay d/b/a 1-800-Radiator of Fairfield, Inc. v. 1-800- Radiator Franchise, Inc., et. al.; same AAA case number as above) alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  Outcome: “On August 14, 2015, the parties settled the dispute with the Fairfield Franchisee, whereby (i) the arbitration was dismissed with prejudice without any fees and costs to any party, (ii) the parties provided mutual general releases, and (iii) RFI agreed to take no steps to terminate the franchise agreement.” (page 25)
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (3)

Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (derivative action against its current and former executive officers and board members) · filed 2025-04-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00288
“… (United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division); Case No. 3:25-cv-00288) (Filed April 30, 2025). Jonathan Gaiman filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (derivative action against its current and former executive officers and board members) · filed 2025-01-10 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00019
“… (United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division); Case No. 3:25-cv-00019) (Filed January 10, 2025). Daniel Terwilliger filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pending
Driven Brands Holdings Inc. · filed 2023-12-22 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK
“v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division); Case No. 3:23- cv-00895-MOC-DCK) (Filed December 22, 2023). Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (3)

New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County; Case No. 451787/2019) (Filed September 26, 2019). In this matter, the N.Y. Attorney General (the “NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018.”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers,”
The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“Case No. 19STCV09397) (Filed March 19, 2019). On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“Case No. 19STCV09597) (Filed March 19, 2019). On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorneys General of 13 states and jurisdictions”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

2 of the proceedings above are indented under the matter they belong to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 7 Item 3 discloses agree.

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the 1-800-radiator verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls