What were the allegations made by Deborah Carreno against 360 Painting?
360_Painting Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
by the Court on January 11, 2022.
Deborah Carreno v. 360 Painting, LLC, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 19cv2239-LAB-BGS). On November 22, 2019, a former 360 Painting franchisee, brought an action against 360 Painting and other unnamed defendants, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and unfair business practices. Generally, Plaintiff claimed that its difficulty in obtaining state licensing required to operate the franchised business constituted a default by 360 Painting of its responsibility to support Plaintiff in opening and operating the franchised business. Plaintiff also claimed that 360 Painting was obligated to provide advertising materials which were specifically adapted to California's requirements. Plaintiff also claimed that 360 Painting failed to provide sufficient field training. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory and special damages, litigations costs and other relief. The parties entered into a settlement of all claims in November 2021, pursuant to which 360 Painting agreed to pay Plaintiff $57,500. Both parties claims were dismissed with prejudice
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–18)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 FDD, Deborah Carreno, a former 360 Painting franchisee, filed a lawsuit against 360 Painting alleging several issues related to the support and obligations of the franchisor. The lawsuit, filed on November 22, 2019, included claims of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. Carreno's central argument was that 360 Painting failed to adequately support her in opening and operating her franchise, particularly concerning obtaining the necessary state licensing in California.
Specifically, Carreno claimed that 360 Painting defaulted on its responsibilities by not providing sufficient support for obtaining state licensing, which she needed to operate her 360 Painting franchise in California. She also alleged that 360 Painting did not provide advertising materials tailored to California's specific requirements. Additionally, Carreno asserted that 360 Painting failed to provide adequate field training necessary for her to run the franchise effectively.
Carreno sought unspecified compensatory and special damages, as well as litigation costs and other forms of relief. The case was eventually settled in November 2021, with 360 Painting agreeing to pay Carreno $57,500. Both parties' claims were dismissed with prejudice by court order on November 18, 2021, meaning neither party could bring the same claims again in the future. This type of settlement is common in franchise disputes to avoid further legal costs and uncertainty.