What was the settlement amount that 360 Painting agreed to pay 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 360 Painting's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the company settled a case with former franchisee Deborah Carreno in November 2021. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, alleged breach of implied covenant of good faith, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices.
The core of Carreno's complaint was that 360 Painting failed to adequately support her in obtaining the necessary state licensing to operate her franchise in California. She also claimed that 360 Painting did not provide advertising materials tailored to California's specific requirements and that the field training was insufficient. Carreno sought unspecified compensatory and special damages, as well as litigation costs.
Ultimately, 360 Painting agreed to pay Carreno $57,500 to settle all claims. Both parties then dismissed their claims with prejudice, as ordered by the court on November 18, 2021. This means neither party can bring the same claims again in the future.