Jan-Pro Franchise Development litigation history

The franchisor

Pending (1)

• District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. and JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc.

  pending

  Government or regulatory action · 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”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Discovery closed in September 2024. 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 March 30, 2026.” (page 18)

Concluded (4)

• Claudio Brandao v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., Before the American Arbitration Association

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-954

  “… (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 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On November 30, 2017, Brandao moved in the Superior Court to reopen his case in court (described above) rather than arbitration, claiming that he cannot afford to pay the AAA deposit. JPI 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.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-11-03 · United States District Court, Northern District of California (transferred from the Massachusetts District Court; appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and a certified question to the California Supreme 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, where the franchisees in Massachusetts had already lost their case”Page 18 of the 2026 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” (page 19)

• Tony Barros v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., Before the American Arbitration Association

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-0958

  “… (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 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In November 2018, JPI informed AAA that Barros had signed a release of claims and AAA should not go forward without resolving whether Barros even 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.

  dismissed

  Brought by a franchisee · 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 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On May 7, 2016, the judge granted JPI’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. Brandao and Barros then filed separate arbitration actions, which are described in the next subsection. Lima has not refiled in New Hampshire.” (page 20)

  Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 2 proceedings

  • Further Proceedings for Brandao - motion in the Superior Court to reopen his case in court rather than arbitration

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · names the franchisor · filed 2017-11-30 · Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts

    “On November 30, 2017, Brandao moved in the Superior Court to reopen his case in court rather than arbitration, claiming that he could not afford to pay the AAA deposit. JPI opposed this motion.”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “On August 21, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Brandao released all claims in exchange for a payment of $22,000.”

  • Further Proceedings for Barros - Motion to Correct the Judgment in the Massachusetts Superior Court action

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · names the franchisor · Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts

    “Barros then filed a Motion to Correct the Judgment as the Judgment did not specifically address his claims. On August 24, 2018, the Superior Court ruled that Barros should be compelled to arbitration.”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome: “On August 24, 2018, the Superior Court ruled that Barros should be compelled to arbitration. On September 6, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Barros released all claims in exchange for a payment of $13,000.”

  Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.