Under what law were the plaintiffs seeking damages from 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, the plaintiffs in the case of Matthew Chavez and Nicole Deis v. Roise Barbers, Inc., Jonathan M. Roise, Floyd's 99 Holdings, LLC and Floyd's 99 Franchising, LLC, were seeking damages, relief, and restitution under California law. The plaintiffs, who were former employees of a Floyds 99 franchisee, Roise Barbers, Inc., alleged employment and labor violations. They claimed that Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC was liable as a joint employer or co-employer with the franchisee.
Floyds 99 Holdings, LLC was later dismissed from the litigation without prejudice. To avoid additional attorney's fees, Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC paid $2,500 as part of a larger settlement with the defendants. Subsequently, all parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement, and the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.
This lawsuit is significant for prospective franchisees as it highlights the potential legal risks associated with employment practices at the franchisee level and the possible exposure of the franchisor, Floyds 99 Franchising, LLC, as a joint employer. It also demonstrates the costs that Floyds 99 may incur to resolve legal disputes, even when settling to avoid further expenses.