FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Fix Auto litigation history

What Fix Auto 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 & 4 at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 12; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest disclosed settlement: $650K; As stated in Item 3

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

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Item 3 · 12 matters disclosed · 7 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. ZDR Corporation, Inc., ZDR 1 Corp, ZDR Corporation, Inc., ZDR Henderson Corp, Juan P. Cabrera, and Letticia Chavez-Cabrera
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-09-12 · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · 3:24-cv-01637-AGS-VET
“FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. ZDR Corporation, Inc., ZDR 1 Corp, ZDR Corporation, Inc., ZDR Henderson Corp, Juan P. Cabrera, and Letticia Chavez-Cabrera, Case No. 3:24-cv- 01637-AGS-VET, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, filed September 12, 2024. Clerk’s defaults have been entered against all defendants”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“defaults have been entered against all defendants, and FUSA’s motion for entry of a default judgment is currently pending.”

Concluded (2)

FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. 5 Star Collision, Inc., d/b/a Fix Auto East Los Angeles, Armando Flores, and Pablo Flores
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-10-18 · Los Angeles County Superior Court · 24STCV27361
“FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. 5 Star Collision, Inc., d/b/a Fix Auto East Los Angeles, Armando Flores, and Pablo Flores, Case No. 24STCV27361, Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed October 18, 2024. The matter was settled, and the action has been dismissed.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. Aurora Collision Center, LLC, Tamara Leonard, and Shaun Arroyo
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-01-03 · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · 3:24-cv-00006-TWR-AHG
“FUSA Franchisor SPV LLC v. Aurora Collision Center, LLC, Tamara Leonard, and Shaun Arroyo, Case No. 3:24-cv-00006-TWR-AHG, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, filed January 3, 2024. The matter was settled, and the action has been dismissed.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Pending (6)

Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Third-party plaintiff · Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (derivative action against its current and former executive officers and board members, and also naming the franchisor's own Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Rivera) · filed 2025-11-18 · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · 2025-1306-MTZ
“Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, file”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Third-party plaintiff · 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
“Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00288, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division), filed April 30, 2025. Jonathan Gaiman filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kalimon v. Aronson, et al.
pending
Third-party plaintiff · Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (derivative action against its current and former executive officers and board members, and also naming the franchisor's own Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Rivera) · filed 2025-10-07 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00764
“Kalimon v. Aronson, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00764, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division), filed October 7, 2025, and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
PJC Management Group, LLC et al. v. MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Systems LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Systems LLC · filed 2025-11-05 · Mecklenburg County Superior Court (North Carolina) · 25-CV-059334-590
“Case No. 25-CV-059334-590, Mecklenburg County Superior Court (North Carolina), filed November 5, 2025. Ten current Maaco franchisees filed a complaint against Maaco, Driven Brands, and Driven Systems alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Third-party plaintiff · 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
“Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00019, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division), filed January 10, 2025. Daniel Terwilliger filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pending
Third-party plaintiff · 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
“Case No. 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division), 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 24 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 27 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 26 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 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Significant litigation portfolio: three franchisor-initiated breach actions, multiple shareholder class actions against parent company (Driven Brands), securities violations, and advertising fund misappropriation claims affecting affiliate brands
Slow unit growth of only 5.0% YoY with 212 units indicates market saturation or franchisee dissatisfaction; flat/declining growth combined with litigation raises sustainability concerns

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

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 Fix Auto verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls