FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

MAACO litigation history

What MAACO 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: 12; 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

Two franchisor-initiated actions against former franchisees (both concluded/settled). Three pending shareholder derivative/securities class actions against parent Driven Brands Holdings. Three concluded franchisee actions against franchisor/affiliates (including settlement for $5.5M to Maaco from franchisee, $100K paid by MAA to franchisees, $675K paid by MAA). One Canada affiliate action (settled CAN$500K). One Arby's affiliate state AG settlement.

Item 3 (litigation) · 12 matters disclosed · 3 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (5)

Maaco Franchisor SPV, LLC v. J&L Auto Services, LLC, Liliana M. Astete, and Joel R. Rosa
settled
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2024-03-04 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · 3:24-cv-00262
“… Case No. 3:24-cv-00262”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter has been settled, and the action closed.”
Maaco Franchisor SPV, LLC v. La Familia Auto Mechanic, LLC, Pedro Antonio Chavarria, Jr., and Pedro Chavarria-Castro, Sr.
dismissed
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2024-12-19 · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 1:24-cv-3678
“… Case No. 1:24-cv-3678”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “we moved to dismiss the case, and our motion was granted”
Collision Consolidation Co. vs. Maaco Franchisor SPV LLC
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-04-14 · Circuit Court for the County of Ottawa (Michigan) · 23-7248-CB
“Collision Consolidation Co. vs. Maaco Franchisor SPV LLC, Case No. 23-7248-CB”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the plaintiff agreed to pay Maaco a total of $5.5 million in exchange for termination of the franchise agreements”
Scott W. Jeffery, Elias Garcia, Maria G. Maravilla, David Gutierrez, Ahmad Elsayed, Neil Michell, and Jacqueline Duenas et al. v. Driven Brands, Inc., Maaco Enterprises, Inc., Maaco Franchising, Inc., Maaco Franchising, LLC
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · Maaco Franchising, LLC / Maaco Enterprises, Inc. (predecessor) · filed 2019-09-09 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 3:19-CV-05647
“Maaco Enterprises, Inc., Maaco Franchising, Inc., Maaco Franchising, LLC, Case No. 3:19-CV-05647”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “MAA agreed, without any admission of liability, to pay the sum of $100,000 to be divided among the franchisees.” (page 28)
Haidar H. Hamoud v. Maaco Franchising, LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Maaco Franchising, LLC / Maaco Enterprises, Inc. (predecessor) · filed 2015-09-21 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · 15-cvs-17660
“… Case No. 15-cvs-17660”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As part of the settlement, MAA remitted $675,000 in exchange for, among other things, all right, title and interest to the former franchisee’s franchise agreement.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (3)

Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (parent) · filed 2025-04-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00288
“… Case No. 3:25-cv-00288”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the parties in this action and the Terwilliger action moved the court in the Terwilliger action to lift the stay in the Terwilliger action for the limited purpose of consolidating the 2 shareholder derivative actions” (page 27)
Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (parent) · filed 2025-01-10 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00019
“… Case No. 3:25-cv-00019”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 30 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a stay of proceedings, pending the completion of discovery in the underlying Genesee securities class action.”
Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (parent) · 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”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 20, 2025, the Court denied the motion.” (page 26)

Concluded (4)

New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (affiliate) · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“… (N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County, Case No. 451787/2019, filed September 26, 2019)”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs”
Syed Abid Hussain and AlphaTaho Inc. v. Maaco Canada Partnership, LP, Maaco Canada GP Corporation, Noah Pollack and Jose Costa
concluded
Brought by a franchisee · Maaco Canada Partnership, LP (affiliate) · filed 2019-02-19 · Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton · FC-54-19
“… Court File No. FC-54-19”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the defendants paid the plaintiffs CAN$500,000, the respective parties agreed to discontinue the action and counterclaim on a without costs basis”
The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Government or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019)”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements”
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.
judgment
Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (affiliate) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“… (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed March 19, 2019)”Page 29 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment”

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

Multiple active litigations including shareholder derivative and securities class actions create franchisor stability uncertainty

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