In the Kentucky case, what division of the Jefferson Circuit Court handled the case against Byrider?
Byrider Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
alleged violations.
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General vs. James Maguire, J. Marc Maguire, Auto Acceptance Corporation, CNAC of Kentucky, Inc., J. Maguire Enterprises, Inc., Auto Acceptance, LLC, CNAC of Kentucky, LLC, J. Maguire Enterprises, LLC, and J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. (Cause No. 04Cl10575) filed on December 16, 2004, in Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Nine. Complaint against J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. and the Louisville franchisee alleging violation of Kentucky's Consumer Protection Act by a pattern of unfair and deceptive sales and financing practices engaged in by the Louisville franchisee, aided and abetted by unlawful sales and financing techniques developed by J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. For purposes of settlement only, an Agreement and Consent Judgment Entry and Order were filed February 2006 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jefferson Circuit Court, Division 7. The court enjoined J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. and its Kentucky franchisees from violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the federal Truth in Lending Act, and the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and ordered remedial steps for the alleged violations; J.D. Byrider Systems, Inc. paid $300,000.00 to the Attorney General as reimbursement, attorneys' fees and other costs of the investigation and litigation. The Louisville franchisee paid $2.7 million in customer restitution. In addition, the Louisville franchisee agreed to provide a credit of $500 on each customer account for vehicles purchased during 2000 through 2004. The Louisville franchisee is no
Source: Item 3 — Litigation (FDD pages 15–19)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Byrider's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the initial case, Cause No. 04Cl10575, was filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Nine. However, for settlement purposes, the Agreement and Consent Judgment Entry and Order were filed in Division 7 of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
This indicates that while the original complaint was handled by Division Nine, the settlement agreement and subsequent order were processed by Division 7. This could be due to various administrative reasons or court procedures.
For a prospective franchisee, this detail highlights the importance of understanding the legal and regulatory landscape in which Byrider operates. It also shows that Byrider has faced legal challenges related to its business practices and franchisee operations, resulting in financial settlements and required remedial actions. Franchisees should be aware of these potential legal risks and ensure they comply with all applicable laws and regulations.