What is Batteries Plus Bulbs seeking in its Demand for Arbitration against the Plaintiff?
Batteries_Plus_Bulbs Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
**
Pending
Ashwant Singh et al v. Batteries Plus, LLC et al, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00223; AAA Case No. 01-23-0005-9286 (commenced December 14, 2023). Plaintiff, a former Batteries Plus franchisee who operated a single Store in Fairfield, California, filed this action against Batteries Plus in California Superior Court – County of Solano, alleging breach of the franchise agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the California Franchise Investment Law, fraud and misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges that Batteries Plus failed to provide Plaintiff with a "protected area" and prevent another franchisee from soliciting and servicing customers in Plaintiff's "market area," and made misrepresentations related to the initial investment information in Batteries Plus's FDD and revenue projections for the Store. Plaintiff seeks to rescind the Franchise Agreement and has demanded approximately $629,000 in damages, plus costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2023, Batteries Plus filed a Demand for Arbitration against Plaintiff seeking to recover lost future franchise fees in the
approximate amount of $281,000, and subsequently sought and obtained a removal of the case to United States District Court. In January 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Demand for Arbitration, an Answering Statement, and a Counterclaim, asserting the same claims that Plaintiff asserted in the state court case that Batteries Plus removed to federal court. On May 13, 2024, the federal court granted the Batteries Plus Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the federal court action. The AAA appointed an Arbitrator in February 2024 and the Arbitration evidentiary hearing took place in February 2025. Just prior to the hearing, the Arbitrator bifurcated the proceedings and only took evidence on three of the Plaintiffs' claims, leaving one claim and Batteries Plus's claim for later proceedings, if necessary. As of the date of this Disclosure Document, the Arbitrator has not issued
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–16)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Batteries Plus Bulbs Franchise Disclosure Document, Batteries Plus Bulbs filed a Demand for Arbitration against a former franchisee, seeking to recover lost future franchise fees. The specific amount Batteries Plus Bulbs is pursuing is approximately $281,000. The original case was filed by the former franchisee, Ashwant Singh, in California Superior Court, alleging several issues including breach of contract, violation of the California Franchise Investment Law, and fraud and misrepresentation. Singh sought to rescind the Franchise Agreement and demanded approximately $629,000 in damages, plus costs and attorneys' fees.
Batteries Plus Bulbs subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court and filed their Demand for Arbitration. The former franchisee then filed an Objection to the Demand for Arbitration, an Answering Statement, and a Counterclaim, asserting the same claims from the state court case. The federal court granted Batteries Plus Bulbs' Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed the federal court action.
The arbitration evidentiary hearing took place in February 2025, and the arbitrator bifurcated the proceedings, taking evidence on only three of the plaintiff's claims and leaving one claim and Batteries Plus Bulbs' claim for later proceedings, if necessary. As of the date of the 2025 Disclosure Document, the arbitrator had not issued a decision. This situation highlights the potential for significant legal disputes and associated costs in the franchise relationship, and the importance of understanding the terms of the franchise agreement and the potential financial implications of any disputes.