On what basis is compensation sought from Crave in the Maritza Wulf, et al. lawsuit?
Crave Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
| Caption and Court | Filing Date | Summary of Proceeding |
|---|---|---|
| Rockin'L Enterprises, | 03/22/2023 | The proceeding claims fraud and unfair trade practices and seeks |
| LLC, Justin LaGrange, | to vitiate the Franchise Agreement for error and fraud, vitiate the | |
| and Heather LaGrange | Securities and Purchase Agreement for the Shreveport location | |
| vs. | ||
| Crave Franchising, LLC, | for fraud, and declare the arbitration and choice of forum | |
| Maritza Wulf, Karl F. | provisions in the Franchise Agreement null and void. | |
| Wulf, Karin Malkiewicz, | Franchisees are seeking damages, penalties, attorneys' fees and | |
| Karl S. Wulf, Larry | costs under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer | |
| Gerson, and Salvatore | Protection Act. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay the | |
| Rincione; Docket No. | Matters pending Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss for | |
| 93,870-A, 10th Judicial | Improper Venue. There has been no activity on the court dockets | |
| District Court, | for more than five months. Continued inactivity could result in a | |
| Natchitoches Parish, | dismissal by the defendants. | |
| Louisiana | ||
| Maritza Wulf, Karl F. | 11/28/2023 | This proceeding is tied to the foregoing proceeding and seeks |
| Wulf, Karin Torres, and | compensation from Defendants by way of contribution or | |
| Karl S. Wulf vs. Crave | indemnification based on misrepresentations or breach of duty | |
| Franchising, LLC and | by Defendants in the event that a judgment is entered against | |
| Salvatore Rincione; | them in the foregoing proceeding. Defendants filed a Motion to | |
| Docket No. 849-304, 24th | Dismiss or Stay the Matters pending Arbitration and a Motion to | |
| Judicial District Court, | Dismiss for Improper Venue, which are pending. There has been | |
| Jefferson Parish, | no activity on the court dockets for more than five months. | |
| Louisiana | Continued inactivity could result in a dismissal by the defendants. |
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 10–11)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Crave's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the lawsuit involving Maritza Wulf, et al. seeks compensation from Crave based on alleged misrepresentations or breach of duty by Crave. Specifically, the plaintiffs are seeking contribution or indemnification from Crave in the event that a judgment is entered against them in a related, earlier proceeding.
This means that the plaintiffs in this case, who are also franchisees, are claiming that if they are found liable in the Rockin'L Enterprises lawsuit, Crave should be held responsible for covering the damages. This claim is based on the assertion that Crave's actions or omissions led to the issues raised in the Rockin'L Enterprises case.
It is important to note that Crave has filed motions to dismiss or stay the matters pending arbitration, as well as a motion to dismiss for improper venue, and these motions are currently pending. The document also indicates that there has been no activity on the court dockets for more than five months, which could potentially lead to a dismissal of the case by the defendants. A prospective franchisee should closely monitor the outcomes of any litigation involving the franchisor, as it could impact the financial stability and reputation of the franchise system.