factual

In the BDD Group, LLC lawsuit against Crave, what specific violations are claimed?

Crave Franchise · 2025 FDD

Answer from 2025 FDD Document

disclosure in this Item:

Caption and Court Filing Date Summary of Proceeding
BDD Group, LLC 01/05/2024 The proceeding claims
v. fraudulent misrepresentation, silent
Crave Franchising, LLC, fraud, innocent misrepresentation, violation of Michigan's
Samantha Rincione, and Franchise Investor Law, and violation of the FTC Franchise
Salvatore Rincione; Rule.
Case No. 24-cv-10035, The franchisees are seeking compensatory damages in excess of
US District Court for the $75,000, punitive and/or exemplary damages, pre-judgment and
Eastern District of post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and court
Michigan costs, recission of the franchise agreement, an order requiring defendants to assume their lease and pay outstanding rent, an order requiring defendants to pay off franchisees' outstanding SBA and personal loans, as well as all costs incurred as a result of entering into the Franchise Agreement. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. Defendant Salvatore Rincione's request to compel arbitration was GRANTED. (ECF No. 21.) Defendant Samantha Rincione was dismissed. The case is STAYED as to Salvatore Rincione. This action is currently inactive, as the parties have not communicated or discussed the case in 7 months. Such inactivity could result in a dismis

Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 10–11)

What This Means (2025 FDD)

According to Crave's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the lawsuit filed by BDD Group, LLC against Crave Franchising, LLC, Samantha Rincione, and Salvatore Rincione, alleges several violations. The plaintiffs claim fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, and innocent misrepresentation.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts a violation of Michigan's Franchise Investor Law and the FTC Franchise Rule. The franchisees involved in the BDD Group, LLC lawsuit are seeking significant financial remedies. These include compensatory damages exceeding $75,000, as well as punitive and/or exemplary damages.

The plaintiffs are also pursuing pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and court costs. Furthermore, they seek rescission of the franchise agreement, an order requiring the defendants to assume their lease and pay outstanding rent, and an order for the defendants to pay off the franchisees' outstanding SBA and personal loans, along with all costs incurred as a result of entering into the Franchise Agreement. It is important to note that Defendant Salvatore Rincione's request to compel arbitration was GRANTED, Defendant Samantha Rincione was dismissed, and the case is STAYED as to Salvatore Rincione. The action is currently inactive, and such inactivity could result in a dismissal by the defendants.

Disclaimer: This information is extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document and is provided for research purposes only. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult with a franchise attorney before making any investment decisions.