What were the plaintiffs seeking in the lawsuit against Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC?
Floyds_99 Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
lution/Columbia Care) in Denver, Colorado.
ITEM 3. LITIGATION
Matthew Chavez and Nicole Deis v. Roise Barbers, Inc., Jonathan M. Roise, Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC and Floyd's 99 Franchising, LLC, No. 37-2020-00040793-CU-OE-CTL (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, filed November 6, 2020). On March 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC and Floyd's 99 Franchising, LLC as defendants to the lawsuit previously filed against Roise Barbers, Inc., a FLOYD'S 99 franchisee,
and Jonathan Roise. Plaintiffs are former employees of Roise Barbers, Inc., and sought damages, relief and restitution under California law for alleged employment and labor violations. Plaintiffs alleged that Floyd's 99 Franchising, LLC was liable as a joint employer or co-employer with Roise Barbers, Inc. On June 14, 2023, Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC was removed from the litigation when it was dismissed without prejudice. On September 6, 2024, Floyd's 99 Franchising, LLC paid $2,500 as part of a larger settlement with Defendants in order to avoid additional attorneys' fees and all parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement. On Dec
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–14)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Floyds 99 Franchise Disclosure Document, in a lawsuit filed on November 6, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Matthew Chavez and Nicole Deis, former employees of Roise Barbers, Inc., sought damages, relief, and restitution under California law for alleged employment and labor violations. The plaintiffs alleged that Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC was liable as a joint employer or co-employer with Roise Barbers, Inc., a Floyds 99 franchisee.
Floyds 99 Holdings, LLC was removed from the litigation on June 14, 2023, after being dismissed without prejudice. To avoid additional attorney's fees, Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC paid $2,500 as part of a larger settlement with the defendants on September 6, 2024, and all parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement. The court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice on December 12, 2024.
This lawsuit indicates potential risks for Floyds 99 franchisees related to employment and labor law compliance. It also shows that Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC may face legal action based on the actions of its franchisees. Prospective franchisees should carefully review Item 3 of the FDD and discuss with Floyds 99 the measures in place to prevent such issues and the support provided to franchisees in managing employment-related legal matters.