Where was the JAMS arbitration involving Byrider and the former Connecticut franchisees administered?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
onger a franchisee.
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. Maenhout, Jeffrey B. Higgins, Jack J. Humbert, Thomas L. Welter, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Shannon Aldridge, Stephen J. Peterson, Jesse Rogers, Keoni Schwartz, Kevin Mason, and other former employees (collectively, the "Byrider Franchising Parties") with the Boston administrative office of JAMS. The arbitration demand alleges that certain Byrider Franchising Parties fraudulently induced claimants to (i) take certain actions after entering into their franchise agreement with Byrider Franchising, including select and develop a site for the dealership and enter into lender agreements and (ii) later enter into a mutual termination agreement of the franchise agreement. Claimants also allege that Byrider Franchising breached the franchise agreement by providing insufficient training and failing to hire qualified candidates for the franchised dealership. They further allege that suggested suppliers failed to provide product and that another nearby Byrider Franchising franchisee encroached on customer sales.
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, an arbitration demand was initiated by former franchisees of a Byrider dealership in Branford, Connecticut against Byrider Franchising and related parties. The arbitration was filed with the Boston administrative office of JAMS. However, JAMS preliminary ruled that the final hearing would be held in Indianapolis, Indiana.
This indicates that while the initial filing and administration might occur in one location (Boston, in this case), the actual hearing location can be different, as determined by JAMS (Indianapolis). This could involve travel and associated costs for the franchisee if they are required to attend the hearing.
Ultimately, Byrider and the former franchisees reached a confidential settlement agreement where Byrider Franchising, J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC, and Byrider Holding Corp. agreed to pay the claimants $500,000 to fully settle all claims and counterclaims against all parties. The first payment of $250,000 was made on May 11, 2018, and the remaining payments were to be made in equal monthly installments. Claimants agreed to de-identify the former franchised dealership and comply with the franchise agreement's post-termination noncompetition covenant. The parties also exchanged general releases, and the claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice after the full settlement amount was received.