In the Connecticut arbitration case against Byrider, what specific entity initiated the arbitration demand alongside CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
H. Jeffrey Baker, et al. v. Byrider Franchising, LLC, et al., JAMS Arbitration, Boston Division, Case No: 14000. On July 21, 2017, the former franchisees of a Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut, CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC, and personal guarantor of those entities' franchise agreement, H. Jeffrey Baker, initiated an arbitration demand against Byrider Franchising, J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC, Byrider Holding Corp., Brad M. Malott, Michael K.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, H. Jeffrey Baker initiated an arbitration demand against Byrider Franchising along with CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC. These entities were the former franchisees of a Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut. Baker was the personal guarantor of the franchise agreement for CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC.
The arbitration demand was filed against Byrider Franchising, J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC, Byrider Holding Corp., Brad M. Malott, Michael K. Maenhout, Jeffrey B. Higgins, Jack J. Humbert, Thomas L. Welter, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Shannon Aldridge, Stephen J. Peterson, Jesse Rogers, and Keoni Schwartz, Kevin Mason, and other former employees. The demand was filed with the Boston administrative office of JAMS.
The claimants alleged fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, improper termination, and violations of franchise investment and/or relationship statutes in Indiana, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, as well as deceptive trade practices statutes in Indiana and Rhode Island. They sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, arbitration costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.