In what month and year did 360 Painting settle the claims with Deborah Carreno?
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, 360 Painting settled claims with Deborah Carreno in November 2021. The lawsuit, filed on November 22, 2019, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. Carreno, a former 360 Painting franchisee, claimed difficulties in obtaining state licensing, inadequate advertising materials adapted to California's requirements, and insufficient field training.
As part of the settlement, 360 Painting agreed to pay Carreno $57,500. The court dismissed both parties' claims with prejudice on November 18, 2021. This means that neither party can bring the same claims to court again.
For a prospective franchisee, this litigation highlights the importance of understanding the support 360 Painting provides in navigating local licensing requirements and adapting advertising materials to specific regional needs. It also underscores the potential for disputes related to training and support, and the associated costs of settlement.