What specific monetary damages were the Arizona and Ft. Lauderdale Plaintiffs seeking from Flowerama in the lawsuit?

int collectively, the "Complaint") by the remaining Plaintiffs (Arizona Family Florists, LLC, Bradley

Denham and Cheryl Denham, collectively the "Arizona Plaintiffs" and Water Mill Flowers, Inc., Thomas Dowd and Cesar Rivera, collectively the "Ft. Lauderdale Plaintiffs"). The Complaint was for breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law unfair competition, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Violation of New York's Franchise Sales Act, common law fraud, common law negligent misrepresentation, common law fraudulent inducement and conversion, and seeking damages in the amount of $13,540,120, attorneys' fees, an accounting, a declaration discharging non-compete restrictions, declaratory relief, rescission of an alleged Arizona Fruit Bouquets Franchise Agreement, and a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from improperly competing in a portion of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and alleging, among other things, that defendants breached their Order Fulfillment Agreements with the plaintiffs and failed to renew them, failed to pay plaintiffs commissions for completed floral order and gift order fulfillment, failed to provide minimum value in orders, engaged in unfair competition, and made misrepresentations regarding defendants' Fruit Bouquets Program, and that plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. The Defendants filed Answers and Counter-Claims to the Complaint on April 7, 2017. The Answer denied the allegations in the Complaint and asserted numerous affirmative defenses, including release or waiver of certain claims by all or some of the plaintiffs and that certain claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitation, statute of frauds, and rights of set-off. The Counter-Claims sought dismissal of the Complaint, monetary damages for breach of contract, breach of the Arizona Franchise Agreement and abandonment of the Arizona Franchise by the Arizona Plaintiffs, and injunctive relief regarding the Arizona Plaintiffs' continued unauthorized use of the 1-800-Flowers marks and for enforcement of the non-competition provisions in the plaintiffs' agreements, plus legal fees and expenses.

Following discovery and cross motions for summary judgement, the Defendants engaged in settlement discussions with Arizona Plaintiffs. These settlement discussions proved successful and, in order to avoid the cost of a trial with these plaintiffs, the case was settled in January 2022 for a total sum of $150,000. A settlement agreement was executed by the parties in which there was no admission of liability by any party and which contained mutual releases. A Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice was filed with the Court.

The remaining Ft. Lauderdale Plaintiffs and the Defendants engaged in settlement discussions. These settlement discussions proved successful and, in an effort to avoid the cost of a trial with these plaintiffs, the case was settled in March 2022 for a total sum of $275,000. A settlement agreement was executed by the parties in which there wa

Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 12–13)