What specific causes of action did the plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint against Remax in the Calabrese case?

According to Remax's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, in the case of Salvatore Calabrese, Michael Calabrese, and Related Assets LLC d/b/a RE/MAX Metro v. RE/MAX, LLC, the plaintiffs' amended complaint included several causes of action. The plaintiffs alleged breach of the franchise agreements, indicating they believed Remax violated the terms of their franchise contracts. They also claimed breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, suggesting Remax acted unfairly or dishonestly in their dealings.

Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted promissory estoppel, which typically arises when a party relies on another's promise to their detriment. The complaint included a claim for breach of contract pertaining to non-compete provisions, likely related to restrictions on competition after the franchise relationship ended. Further causes of action included unfair competition/misappropriation, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with a contract and/or prospective contractual relations, fraudulent inducement, conversion/civil theft, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs in this case sought rescission of the new terms in the franchise agreements, aiming to undo changes they felt were detrimental. They also sought an unspecified amount of damages, covering actual, consequential, special, and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees, punitive or exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs. This wide range of claims and requested relief indicates a significant dispute between the former franchisees and Remax, with potentially substantial financial implications depending on the outcome of the litigation.