Servicemaster Clean litigation history

The franchisor and its predecessor

Concluded (5)

• H&L Enterprises, LLC v. ServiceMaster Clean/Restore SPE LLC d/b/a ServiceMaster Brands

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-10-05 · Circuit Court of Shelby County for the State of Tennessee, Thirteenth Judicial District · CT-4161-23

  “… Circuit Court of Shelby County for the State of Tennessee, Thirteenth Judicial District, Case No.: CT-4161-23, filed on October 5, 2023.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On January 9, 2026, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which (a) neither party admitted liability or fault, (b) we agreed to pay the franchisee $1,795,000, (c) the franchisee agreed that its franchise agreement was terminated, and (d) both parties agreed to release certain claims.”

• Faster Than Sound, Inc. v. ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership, SM Clean LLC, ServiceMaster Clean/Restore SPE, LLC, and ServiceMaster Systems, LLC

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership (co-respondents SM Clean LLC, ServiceMaster Clean/Restore SPE, LLC and ServiceMaster Systems, LLC) · filed 2021-06-03 · American Arbitration Association · 01-20-0007-2597

  “… American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-20-0007-2597, filed June 3, 2021. Claimant filed a claim against Respondents alleging (a) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “No payment was required to be made by Respondents nor was any payment made on their behalf. On February 22, 2022, an Order dismissing the proceedings with prejudice was entered as to both the Claim and the Cross-Claim.” (page 25)

• Express Restoration Corporation v. ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership and SM Clean, LLC

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership (with SM Clean, LLC) · filed 2018-12-20 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 18-cv-10569-JFW-MRW

  “… United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 18-cv- 10569-JFW-MRW, filed December 20, 2018. Plaintiff, who was a former franchisee, filed a Complaint against ServiceMaster Global Holdings Inc. for alleged damages of approximately $1.5 million.”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “After several months of discovery and motion practice, the parties agreed to a settlement whereby (a) Predecessor paid Plaintiff the sum of $75,000 and (b) Plaintiff and its owners agreed that they will never in any way own, operate, consult with, be employed by, or associated with any individual or entity that is associated with any ServiceMaster Franchise.”

• Mary Fernimos v. ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership · filed 2018-01-09 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · 2:18-cv010083-SJM-EAS

  “… United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:18-cv010083-SJM-EAS, filed January 9, 2018. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Predecessor alleging breach of a settlement agreement relating to the sale and transfer of certain licenses”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On May 23, 2018, the parties reached a settlement by mediation whereby Predecessor agreed to pay Plaintiff $17,500 and allow a one- year period to sell one former ServiceMaster franchise agreement to an approved buyer in a specific region in Michigan. On June 26, 2018, the lawsuit was Dismissed with Prejudice.”

• ServiceMaster by Jones, Inc. v. ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership · filed 2014-12-29 · Tennessee Chancery Court, 30th District (printed in the text layer as '30UPUthUPU District') · CH-14-1845

  “… Tennessee Chancery Court, 30UPUthUPU District, No. CH-14-1845, filed December 29, 2014. Plaintiff was a franchisee that filed a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement, and unfair and deceptive trade practices by Predecessor”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby (a) Predecessor agreed to pay $20,000 but denied any wrongdoing; (b) the parties agreed to an early termination of the franchise agreement;” (page 24)

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (4)

• New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · 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. The New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On September 21, 2020, without admitting or denying the NYAG’s allegations, DBI and the NYAG entered into a consent agreement to resolve the State’s complaint. Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs,”

• The People of the State of California v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (ARG) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397

  “… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09397, filed March 19, 2019. On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California,”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “ARG expressly denied these conclusions but entered into a settlement agreement to avoid litigation with the states. Under the settlement agreement ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done);”

• The People of the State of California v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (DBI) · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597

  “… California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. 19STCV09597, filed on March 19, 2019. On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney Generals of 13 states and jurisdictions concerning the inclusion of “no-poaching” provisions”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The Attorney General of the State of California filed the above-reference lawsuit in order to place the settlement agreement in the public record, and the action was closed after the Court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment.” (page 26)

• In the Matter of Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Jimmy John’s Franchisor SPV LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2025-0122

  “… (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2025-0122). On March 28, 2022, Jimmy John’s filed a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) with the Maryland Securities Division as part of a notice of exemption from franchise registration.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “the Maryland Securities Commissioner and Jimmy John’s entered into a Consent Order on June 9, 2025. Under the terms of the Consent Order, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay a $30,000 civil monetary penalty,”