Does the Zoomin Groomin FDD require the franchisor to supplement Item 3 in Washington?
Zoomin_Groomin Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
-
- Franchisor has been required to supplement Item 3 in Washington in furtherance of the objectives of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act. Accordingly, Franchisor makes the following additional disclosures related to its litigation history:
Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc., v. John Hewitt. Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc., Nominal Defendant, (Case No. 2017- 0883), Erie County Employees Retirement. System, on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc. v. John T. Hewitt. Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc. Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0914, and RSL Senior Partners, LLC, derivatively and on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc. v Brunot et al, (Case No. 2:18-cv-00127-HCM-DEM).
Source: Item 17 — g. of the Disclosure Document is modified to state that, in addition to the grounds for immediate termination specified in Item 17.h., the franchisor can terminate upon written notice and a 60 day opportunity to cure for a breach of the Franchise Agreement. (FDD pages 51–65)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Zoomin Groomin FDD, the franchisor has been required to supplement Item 3 in Washington. This supplementation is done to further the objectives of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act. As a result, Zoomin Groomin provides additional disclosures related to its litigation history in Washington.
Specifically, the FDD lists three cases related to Liberty Tax, Inc. These cases are Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc., v. John Hewitt. Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc., Nominal Defendant, (Case No. 2017- 0883), Erie County Employees Retirement. System, on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc. v. John T. Hewitt. Defendant, and Liberty Tax, Inc. Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0914, and RSL Senior Partners, LLC, derivatively and on behalf of Liberty Tax, Inc. v Brunot et al, (Case No. 2:18-cv-00127-HCM-DEM).
This requirement to supplement Item 3 indicates that Washington has specific regulations and concerns regarding franchise transparency, particularly related to litigation history. Prospective Zoomin Groomin franchisees in Washington should carefully review these additional disclosures and understand the implications of the listed litigation for the franchise system. They may also want to consult with a franchise attorney to fully understand their rights and obligations under Washington's franchise laws.