FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning litigation history
What JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning 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
- 5
- 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 disclosed for KDO Capital (the franchisor). Master Franchisor (Jan-Pro Franchising International) has 1 pending case: District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises and JPI (2022, DC Superior Court - employee misclassification/wage claims). Prior actions fully settled: Roman v. JPI ($30M settlement 2024); Brandao and Barros arbitrations ($22K and $13K respectively settled 2019).
Item 3 (litigation) · 5 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.
pendingGovernment or regulatory action · Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor), with regional franchise developer Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. · 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 Division). On July 13, 2022, the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) for the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit alleging that Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. (“Nabicorp”), a Regional Franchise Developer”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The District of Columbia filed its opposition papers to the motions on December 6, 2024, and the defendants submitted their respective reply on January 6, 2025. It is unknown as to when the court will render its decision.”
Concluded (4)
Claudio Brandao v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-954
“… Before the American Arbitration Association (Case No. 01-16-0003-954). On July 28, 2016, Brandao, a plaintiff in the above action, filed an individual Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Defendant has opposed this motion. On August 21, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Brandao released all claims in exchange for a payment of $22,000.”
Roman, Vazquez and Aguilar, and all others similarly situated v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2016 · United States District Court, Northern District of California (transferred from the Massachusetts District Court) · 3:16-cv-05961
“… (Case No. 3:16-cv-05961, United States District Court, Northern District of California). On November 3, 2016, the Court accepted a transfer of this case from the Massachusetts District Court,”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 31, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, subject to the approval of the Court, whereby Jan-Pro agreed to pay thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to resolve all individual and class wide claims in exchange for releases from all plaintiffs, class members, and putative class members.” (page 17)
Tony Barros v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-0958
“… Before the American Arbitration Association (Case No. 01-16-0003-0958). On July 28, 2016, Barros, a plaintiff in the above Massachusetts state court action, filed an individual Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “has a right to go forward due to the release he signed. On September 6, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Barros released all claims in exchange for a payment of $13,000.”
Claudio Brandao and Rommel Lima, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (the Master Franchisor) · filed 2013-12-18 · Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts · 13-4439B
“… (Case number 13-4439B, Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts). The attorney in the above federal case attempted to add two additional plaintiffs to the federal case in 2012.”Page 18 of the 2025 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 suit in New Hampshire.”
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
- Major litigation history: $30M settlement for employee misclassification claims (2004-2023) indicates systemic labor law compliance issues that may persist
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?