In the Connecticut arbitration case, what JAMS administrative office is handling the arbitration demand against Byrider?
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.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the arbitration demand initiated by former franchisees of a Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut, is being handled by the Boston administrative office of JAMS. This arbitration case, filed on July 21, 2017, involves H. Jeffrey Baker and his entities CT102 LLC and Sixela LLC, who are seeking arbitration against Byrider Franchising and related entities. The case is identified as JAMS Arbitration, Boston Division, Case No: 14000.
This information is relevant for prospective Byrider franchisees as it provides insight into the types of disputes that have arisen between Byrider and its franchisees in the past. Specifically, it highlights a case involving allegations of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, which led to arbitration. Understanding the administrative location of the arbitration (Boston) may be useful if similar disputes arise in the future.
It's important to note that the FDD also mentions that JAMS preliminary ruled that the final hearing will be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at a date to be determined. This indicates that while the case is being administered by the Boston office, the actual hearing location may differ. Additionally, the document states that the parties eventually reached a confidential settlement agreement where Byrider Franchising agreed to pay the claimants $500,000 to fully settle all claims and counterclaims. This outcome provides further context regarding the resolution of such disputes.