What court is the BDD Group, LLC v. Crave Franchising, LLC case held in?
Crave Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer 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 case BDD Group, LLC v. Crave Franchising, LLC, Samantha Rincione, and Salvatore Rincione; Case No. 24-cv-10035 is held in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The franchisees are seeking compensatory damages in excess of $75,000, punitive and/or exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, recission of the franchise agreement, an order requiring defendants to assume their lease and pay outstanding rent, and 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.
The document states that the 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.
The action is currently inactive, as the parties have not communicated or discussed the case in 7 months. The FDD notes that such inactivity could result in a dismissal by the defendants.