FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

JAN-PRO Cleaning & Disinfecting litigation history

What JAN-PRO Cleaning & Disinfecting disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 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: 4; 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: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

1 affiliate concluded case (JTH Enterprises, settled 2016). Master Franchisor: 1 pending DC misclassification case; 1 settled CA federal class action ($30M, 2024); 1 MA state court case (dismissed, Brandao/Barros); 2 AAA arbitration proceedings (Brandao and Barros, both settled 2019).

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. and JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc.
pending
Government or regulatory action · JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2022-07-13 · Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division · 2022 CA 003128 B
“… (Case Number 2022 CA 003128 B, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In October 2024, defendants JPI and Nabicorp each filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part in May 2025. Trial is scheduled for”

Concluded (3)

JTH Enterprises II, LLC v. M.T. Franchising, Inc. dba JAN-PRO of Greater Cincinnati & Dayton
concluded
M.T. Franchising, Inc. dba JAN-PRO of Greater Cincinnati & Dayton · filed 2014-07-25 · Hamilton County Municipal Court, Civil Division, Cincinnati, Ohio; and the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio · 14CV16812 (and A1502284, the affiliate motion-to-compel action)
“… (Case No. 14CV16812, Hamilton County Municipal Court, Civil Division, Cincinnati,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “No Arbitration demand was filed and the parties entered into Settlement Agreement on May 19, 2016. By the terms of the agreement, each party agreed to pay the costs of the” (page 17)
Claudio Brandao and Rommel Lima, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
concluded
Brought by a third party · JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2013-12-18 · Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts; and the American Arbitration Association · 13-4439B (with AAA Case Nos. 01-16-0003-954 and 01-16-0003-0958)
“… (Case number 13-4439B, Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts). The attorney in the”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 7, 2016, the judge granted the Defendant’s Motion and dismissed this action and stated that Brandao should have filed an arbitration action and Lima should have filed”
Roman, Vazquez and Aguilar, and all others similarly situated v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
concluded
Brought by a third party · JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · United States District Court, Northern District of California · 3:16-cv-05961
“… (Case No. 3:16-cv-05961, United States District Court, Northern District”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 23, 2024, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and Settlement, effectively bringing the litigation to an end. Prior Actions Employee” (page 19)

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

Active multi-state employee misclassification litigation creating legal/compliance risk and potential liability exposure for franchisees

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 JAN-PRO Cleaning & Disinfecting verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls