What was the case name for the concluded litigation involving Breandan Cotter and Checkers?
Checkers Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
this time.
Concluded Litigation:
Breandan Cotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., (Case 8:19-cv-01386), U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Jack Dinh, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., (Case 8:19-cv-01310), U.S. District Court for the Central District of Florida, Southern Division.
On June 6, 2019, a civil complaint was filed against us on behalf of plaintiff Breandan Cotter and similarly situated customers (the "Cotter Complaint"). The Cotter Compliant asserted claims of breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, stemming from our alleged failure to secure and safeguard our customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data and personally identifiable information, and our alleged failure to timely and adequately provide notice to our affected customers. On July 2, 2019, a civil complaint was filed against us on behalf of plaintiff Jack Dinh and similarly situated customers (the "Dinh Complaint" and together with the Cotter Complaint, the "Complaints"). The Dinh Complaint asserted claims of negligence and violations of California Civil Code §§ 1798.80, et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq., stemming from our alleged failure to maintain reasonable security practices to protect the unauthorized access to our customers personal information. The Complaints sought certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged breaches and also sought monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and other costs. We held a joint mediation concerning both Complaints, and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement to dismiss both Complaints with prejudice. On August 25, 2021 the Court entered an Order approving the settlement, which requires us to (i) reimburse each class member up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses, or (ii) provide $20 in restaurant vouchers to each class member without documented out-of-pocket expenses. In accordance with that Order, notice of the settlement was subsequent
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 15–17)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Checkers's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the case name for the concluded litigation involving Breandan Cotter was "Breandan Cotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., (Case 8:19-cv-01386), U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida". The document also mentions a related case, "Jack Dinh, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., (Case 8:19-cv-01310), U.S. District Court for the Central District of Florida, Southern Division," which was addressed jointly with the Cotter case. Both cases were civil complaints filed against Checkers.
The Cotter complaint, filed on June 6, 2019, alleged breaches of confidence, implied contract, negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. These claims stemmed from Checkers' alleged failure to secure customer credit and debit card information and to provide timely notice of the issue to affected customers. The Dinh complaint, filed on July 2, 2019, alleged negligence and violations of California Civil Code and California's Unfair Competition Law due to similar security practice concerns regarding the protection of customers' personal information.
Both complaints sought certification of a nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged breaches, as well as monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Checkers held a joint mediation for both complaints and reached a settlement agreement to dismiss them with prejudice. The court approved the settlement on August 25, 2021, requiring Checkers to either reimburse class members up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses or provide $20 in restaurant vouchers to each class member without documented expenses. Notice of the settlement was then provided to the settlement class.