FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Meineke litigation history
What Meineke 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
- 14
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $54K
- 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 · 14 matters disclosed · 5 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Meineke Franchisor SPV LLC and Meineke Realty, Inc. v. CJGL, Inc., Carl Douma, and Jan Douma
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2023-01-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division) · 2:23-cv-00374
“Meineke and its affiliate brought this action against a former franchisee and its owners, alleging that the franchisee abandoned its Meineke Center and failed to pay amounts owed to Meineke under its franchise agreement and their personal guaranty and amounts owed to Meineke’s affiliate under the sublease for the Meineke Center.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On January 21, 2025, following a trial on the remaining issues, the Court granted judgment in favor of Meineke’s affiliate on the breach of sublease claim, entitling the affiliate to recover $13,796, plus interest, and in favor of the applicable defendants on Meineke’s breach of franchise documents” (page 25)
Concluded (2)
Meineke Franchisor SPV LLC, as successor-in-interest to Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Meineke Car Care Centers, Inc. v. 1765978 Ontario Inc., Battista Congi, Caterina Congi, Giovanni Congi, Franco Congi, Luca Congi, and Elisa Congi
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2024-07-15 · American Arbitration Association (International Centre for Dispute Resolution Division) · 01-24-0006-4673
“Meineke, as successor-in-interest to MCC, filed this action against a former Canadian franchisee and its guarantors for failing to pay amounts owed to Meineke under the applicable franchise agreement. This matt”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Association of Muffler Dealers, Inc. d/b/a Meineke Dealers Association, Inc. v. Meineke Franchisor SPV, LLC, Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC, Meineke Car Care Centers, Inc., Driven Systems, LLC, Driven Brands Funding, LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., Driven Holdings, LLC, Harvest Partners, L.P., and Roark Ca
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-27 · Superior Court Division for the County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina · 16 CVS 13328
“This lawsuit, which was filed against us and other parties (collectively, the “Defendants”), by the Meineke Dealers Association (the “Association”), alleged fraudulent, deceptive, unfair and commercially unreasonable conduct by reason of the Defendants’ refusal to honor certain alleged franchise contract renewal rights of Meinek”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties subsequently settled the dispute on April 24, 2018 and agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed, among other things, that we would give existing franchisees meeting certain conditions who elect to renew their franchises for 8 years the right to operate” (page 29)
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Meineke Franchisor SPV LLC et al. v. The Woods Group, LLC, Theodore Woods III, and Brannon Harris
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-10-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 4:24-cv-04185
“Meineke filed this action against a former franchisee and its guarantors for failing to pay amounts owed to Meineke and/or its affiliate under the applicable franchise agreements. Meineke Franchisor S”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (2)
PJC Management Group, LLC et al. v. MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Systems LLC
pendingBrought 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
“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, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq. The Maaco franchisees allege t”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Driven Brands Holdings Inc., with former officers Jonathan Fitzpatrick and Tiffany Mason as co-defendants · filed 2023-12-22 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK
“Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Court”) against Driven Brands Holdings, as well as former Chief Executive Officer and President of Driven Brands, Jonathan Fitzpatrick, and a former executive of Driven Bra”Page 25 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (5)
Meineke Canada SPV LP vs. David Gordon Wood (individually and as executor of the Estate of Crystal Wood) and 2015206 Ontario Inc.
settledBrought against a franchisee · Meineke Canada SPV LP (a sister franchisor that offers Meineke Center franchises in Canada, Item 1 p13) · filed 2024-04-08 · American Arbitration Association (International Division) · 01-24-0004-4227-1-ER
“Meineke Canada filed a Notice of Arbitration against the former franchisees of 4 Meineke Centers located in Ontario, Canada seeking damages, disgorgement of profits from the operation of a competitive business, interest, costs and expenses, and any other relief that the arbitrator considers appropriate. The Notice of Arbitration”Page 27 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“in violation of the franchise agreements’ post-termination non-competition provisions. This matter has been settled. Concluded Actions Adeyemi Odufuye” (page 28)
Adeyemi Odufuye and Nitium, Inc. v. Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., Driven Brands Holdings, LLC and Harvest Partners, L.P.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC ('MCC', the franchisor of Meineke Centers before the Securitization Transaction, Item 1 p10), with Driven Brands and former parents · filed 2018-05-09 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · 3:18-cv-00356
“A former franchisee of a Meineke Center filed a lawsuit against MCC, Driven Brands, and their current and former parent companies, alleging fraud in the inducement, fraud and/or deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Pr”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On June 13, 2019, the parties mutually settled the matter without any admission of liability. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Meineke agreed to pay the former franchisee $54,000. On June 27, 2019, the case was dismissed. Micah”
Micah Cane v. Meineke Car Care Center of Dundalk #2342, Richard Seymour, T&T Enterprise, Inc., Thomas Campbell, Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC and Crista Campbell
judgmentThird-party plaintiff · Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC ('MCC') · filed 2017-11-20 · Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland · 03C16009625
“The plaintiff alleged that he was invoiced for original equipment but instead received after-market, modified parts and brought claims against the franchisee for breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. MCC was named in the first amended complaint in 2”Page 28 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The court found MCC liable for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. MCC elected not to appeal the court’s ruling. The franchisee”
James Ervi, Miriam Ervi, and CJMJ, Inc. v. Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., Driven Brands Holdings, LLC, Harvest Partners, L.P., Ed Pearson and Roark Capital Group, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC ('MCC'), with Driven Brands, its current and former parents and an MCC representative (Ed Pearson) · filed 2016-06-02 · Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina · 01-16-0002-3730
“Current franchisees of a Meineke Center filed a lawsuit against MCC, Driven Brands, their current and former parent companies, and an MCC representative alleging fraud in the inducement, fraud and/or deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the North Ca”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties mutually settled the matter on August 14, 2017. The case was dismissed with prejudice with no admission of liability by either party. Meineke Car Care Centers”
Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC v. Keller & Sons, Inc., Michael Keller, Ryan Keller, and Christian Valle
settledBrought against a franchisee · Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC ('MCC') · filed 2015-08-14 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 8:15-cv-01305
“MCC filed this lawsuit against a current franchisee for breach of the various franchise agreements and failure to pay franchise fees and advertising contributions. The current franchisee asserted counterclaims against MCC seeking rescission of all fr”Page 30 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties mutually settled the matter and as part of the settlement MCC purchased the assets used in the operation of the defendants’ franchises. The case was dismissed with no admission of liability by either party. D”
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Pending (2)
Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Rick Puckett, Karen Stroup, Peter Swinburn, Michael Thompson and Jose Tomas (current and former Driven Brands Hold · filed 2025-04-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00288
“Jonathan Gaiman filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive officers and board members, including Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Ric”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kalimon v. Aronson, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Neal Aronson and other current and former Driven Brands Holdings executive officers and board members, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Rivera and board member Damien Harmon · 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., United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division), Case No. 3:25-cv-00764, filed October 7, 2025, and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, filed November 18, 2025. John Kalimon and Stephen Busha”Page 26 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
This list shows 13 of the 14 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
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 litigation cases including franchisor-initiated actions and securities class actions indicate governance/compliance issues at corporate level
- Declining/flat unit count in automotive service sector suggests competitive pressure or franchisee dissatisfaction not reflected in litigation disclosure alone
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?