On what date was the lawsuit filed against Remax in the Calabrese case?
Remax Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Actions Involving RE/MAX, LLC and its Affiliates
- Salvatore Calabrese, Michael Calabrese, and Related Assets LLC d/b/a RE/MAX Metro, Plaintiffs, v. RE/MAX, LLC d/b/a RE/MAX New York Region (f/k/a RE/MAX International, Inc.), RE/MAX of New York Inc. (n/k/a RMY Holdings Inc.), ABC Corp. Nos. 1-10, Brook Staten Realty LLC, Staten Brook Realty LLC, XYZ Corp. Nos. 1-10, Joseph Madaio, Robert Coppolino, Salvatore Carola, John/Jane Does Nos. 1-10, Terri Bohannon, and Sandy Jamison, Defendants, Index No. 507254/2018, pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, filed on April 10, 2018.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 21–29)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Remax's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a lawsuit was filed by Salvatore Calabrese, Michael Calabrese, and Related Assets LLC d/b/a RE/MAX Metro against RE/MAX, LLC d/b/a RE/MAX New York Region (f/k/a RE/MAX International, Inc.), RE/MAX of New York Inc. (n/k/a RMY Holdings Inc.), ABC Corp. Nos. 1-10, Brook Staten Realty LLC, Staten Brook Realty LLC, XYZ Corp. Nos. 1-10, Joseph Madaio, Robert Coppolino, Salvatore Carola, John/Jane Does Nos. 1-10, Terri Bohannon, and Sandy Jamison on April 10, 2018. The case is currently pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings.
The plaintiffs in this case allege that Remax improperly refused to recognize an alleged verbal agreement to renew the franchise agreements, required them to renew on the then-current form of franchise agreement with allegedly less favorable terms, refused to allow them to renew their existing form of franchise agreement, and solicited and subsequently granted competing franchise locations to certain of the sales agents who had been associated with plaintiffs in an alleged effort to secure certain of plaintiffs' business despite alleged non-compete agreements of those sales agents. The plaintiffs are seeking rescission of the new terms in the franchise agreements and an unspecified amount of damages, including actual damages, consequential damages, special damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, punitive or exemplary damages, pre- and postjudgment interest and costs.
Remax filed a motion to dismiss which was granted in part and denied in part on May 26, 2020. Remax intends to vigorously defend against all claims. This information is important for potential franchisees to consider as it provides insight into the types of legal challenges Remax has faced and how the company has responded to them.