What motions did the defendants file in response to the BDD Group, LLC lawsuit against Crave?
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, in response to the lawsuit filed by BDD Group, LLC, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. The court granted Salvatore Rincione's request to compel arbitration, and Samantha Rincione was dismissed from the case. As a result, the case is stayed as to Salvatore Rincione.
The lawsuit, filed on January 5, 2024, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 24-cv-10035, alleges fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, innocent misrepresentation, violation of Michigan's Franchise Investor Law, and violation of the FTC Franchise Rule. The franchisees are seeking significant financial remedies, including compensatory damages exceeding $75,000, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees, court costs, rescission of the franchise agreement, assumption of their lease and payment of outstanding rent, and payoff of outstanding SBA and personal loans.
The document also notes that the action is currently inactive, with no communication or discussion among the parties in the seven months preceding the document's publication. This inactivity could lead to a dismissal by the defendants. This information is relevant for prospective franchisees as it provides insight into the types of legal challenges Crave has faced and how the company has responded to them.