What specific failures did Deborah Carreno claim 360 Painting was responsible for?
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, a lawsuit was filed by former franchisee Deborah Carreno against 360 Painting. Carreno's claims centered around several alleged failures on the part of 360 Painting to adequately support her in establishing and running her franchise.
Specifically, Carreno claimed that 360 Painting failed to support her in obtaining the necessary state licensing to operate in California. She argued that securing this licensing was 360 Painting's responsibility. Additionally, Carreno asserted that 360 Painting did not provide advertising materials tailored to meet California's specific requirements. Finally, she claimed that 360 Painting did not provide sufficient field training to properly equip her to run the franchise.
The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and special damages, litigation costs, and other forms of relief. Ultimately, 360 Painting and Carreno reached a settlement in November 2021, with 360 Painting agreeing to pay Carreno $57,500. Both parties' claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they could not be brought again in the future.