Dunkin' Lawsuit Against Franchisees Over Undocumented Employees

Case 1:19-cv-00427-AJT-TCB Document 1 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID# 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC,

a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
DD IP HOLDER LLC,
BASKIN ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC,
BR IP HOLDER LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MADI KRUPA FOOD, LLC,

a Virginia Limited Liability Company,
CARNEYS POINT FOOD FRANCHISE,
LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Case No. _____________
Company
WOODSTOWN FOODS FRANCHISE,
LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company
MANCHESTER FOOD FRANCHISE,
LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability
Company
FALLS CHURCH FOOD, LLC,
PENNSVILLE FOOD FRANCHISE LLC,
a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company
PRAYOSHA FOOD FRANCHISES, LLC,
PWS FOOD FRANCHISE, LLC,

SEVEN CORNERS FOOD FRANCHISE,
Company,
FALLSCHURCH BJ’S FOOD LLC,
WOODBRIDGE BJ’S FOOD LLC,
SAHAJANAND KRUPA FOOD
FRANCHISE LLC, a Virginia Limited
Liability Company,
LURAY FOOD FRANCHISE, LLC,
a Virginia Limited Liability Company
KELLY’S RIDGE FOOD FRANCHISE
Company,
ALPA PATEL,
a New Jersey citizen,
NITIN PATEL,
WAEL KIOUMJI,
SHAKTI HOLDING, LLC,
a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company,
SWETA PATEL,
a Virginia citizen,
JAYANTIBHAI J. PATEL,
a Virginia citizen,
VIPUL B. PATEL,
a Virginia citizen,
NIKUL PATEL,
SHAILESH V. PATEL,
-2-
a Delaware citizen,
JAGRUTI PADHIYAR,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
This is an action for breach of contract, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement,
and unfair competition. Plaintiff Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC licensed Defendants Madi
Krupa Food, LLC, Carneys Point Food Franchise, LLC, Woodstown Foods Franchise, LLC,
Manchester Food Franchise, LLC, Falls Church Food, LLC, Pennsville Food Franchise LLC,
Prayosha Food Franchises, LLC, PWS Food Franchise, LLC, Seven Corners Food Franchise,
LLC, Fallschurch BJ’s Food LLC, Woodbridge BJ’s Food LLC, Sahajanand Krupa Food
Franchise LLC, Luray Food Franchise, LLC, and Kelly’s Ridge Food Franchise LLC
(collectively, the “Franchisee Defendants”) to use the famous and federally registered Dunkin’
trademarks and service marks (the “Dunkin’ Marks”) and the Dunkin’ System at thirteen
franchised restaurants located in Virginia and New Jersey. Additionally, Plaintiff Baskin-
Robbins Franchising LLC licensed Madi Krupa Food, LLC and Luray Food Franchise, LLC to
use the famous and federally registered Baskin-Robbins trademarks and service marks (the
“Baskin Marks”) and the Baskin System at two franchised restaurants located in Virginia.
Defendants Alpa Patel, Nitin Patel, Wael Kioumji, Shakti Holding, LLC, Sweta Patel,
Jayantibhai J. Patel, Vipul B. Patel, Nikul Patel, Shailesh V. Patel, and Jagruti Padhiyar (the
“Guarantor Defendants”) guaranteed the Franchisee Defendants’ obligations under the Franchise
Agreements.
For the protection of the Marks and brands, the Franchise Agreements contained various
provisions related to the proper operation of the restaurants, including the express obligation for
-3-
the franchisees to “obey all laws.” Plaintiffs investigated and determined that Defendants were
violating federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)–(b), by failing to verify whether employees
at the restaurants were authorized to work in the United States and failing to maintain required
employment records. These and other documented violations constitute a breach of multiple
provisions of the Franchise Agreements and have caused and will cause immediate harm to
Dunkin’ and Baskin. As a consequence, Plaintiffs gave notice that the Franchise Agreements
were terminated and requested that Defendants deidentify the restaurants and comply with
various other post-termination obligations under the Franchise Agreements. However, as of this
date, Defendants have failed to deidentify the restaurants and provide the requested assurances.
Accordingly, as set forth below, Plaintiffs now seek damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief.
The Parties
A. Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC (“Dunkin’ Franchising”) is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Canton, Massachusetts.
It is engaged in the business of franchising independent businesspersons to operate Dunkin’
restaurants throughout the United States. Dunkin’ franchisees are licensed to use the trade
names, service marks, and trademarks of Dunkin’ and to operate under the Dunkin’ System,
which involves the production, merchandising, and sale of doughnuts, coffee, and related
products utilizing specially designed buildings with special equipment, equipment layouts,
interior and exterior accessories, identification schemes, products, standards, specifications,
proprietary marks, and identification.
-4-
2. Plaintiff DD IP Holder LLC, successor-in-interest to Dunkin’ Donuts USA, Inc.,
is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Canton,
Massachusetts. DD IP Holder LLC is the owner of the trademark, service mark, and trade name
“Dunkin’” and related marks. (Unless stated otherwise, Plaintiffs Dunkin’ Franchising and DD
IP Holder LLC are referred to collectively as “Dunkin’”.)
3. Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin Franchising”) is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business at 130 Royall Street, Canton,
Massachusetts. Baskin is engaged in the business of franchising independent businesspersons to
operate Baskin stores throughout the United States. Baskin franchisees are licensed to use the
trade names, service marks, and trademarks of Baskin and to operate under the Baskin system,
which involves the production, merchandising, and sale of ice cream and related products
utilizing special equipment, equipment layouts, interior and exterior accessories, identification
schemes, products, management programs, standards, specifications, proprietary marks, and
information.
4. Plaintiff BR IP Holder LLC, successor-in-interest to Baskin-Robbins
Incorporated, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 130
Royall Street, Canton, Massachusetts. BR IP Holder LLC is the owner of the trademark, service
mark, and trade name “Baskin-Robbins” and related marks. Unless otherwise specified, Baskin
Franchising and BR IP Holder LLC are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Baskin-Robbins”
or “Baskin.”
5. The sole member of Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC and Baskin-Robbins
Franchising LLC is DB Franchising Holding Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Canton, Massachusetts. In turn, the sole member
-5-
of DB Franchising Holding Company LLC, Plaintiff DD IP Holder LLC, and Plaintiff BR IP
Holder LLC is DB Master Finance LLC. DB Master Finance LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Canton, Massachusetts. The sole member of DB
Master Finance LLC is Baskin-Robbins International LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company. The sole member of Baskin-Robbins International LLC is Baskin-Robbins Flavors
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The sole member of Baskin-Robbins Flavors LLC
is Baskin-Robbins USA LLC, a California limited liability company. The sole member of
Baskin-Robbins USA LLC is Baskin-Robbins LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
sole member of Baskin-Robbins LLC is Mister Donut of America LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company. The sole member of Mister Donut of America LLC is Dunkin’ Donuts USA
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The sole member of Dunkin’ Donuts USA LLC is
Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The sole member of Dunkin’
Donuts LLC is Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The principal place of business of
all the foregoing entities is located in Canton, Massachusetts.
6. Dunkin’ and Baskin operate as separate corporations. However, they have
pursued or permitted joint development of units in selected markets, which are commonly
referred to as “combo” restaurants.
B. Defendants
7. Defendant Madi Krupa Food, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
operates a combo Dunkin’/Baskin restaurant located at 8119 Watson Street, McLean, Virginia
pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated February 9, 2012. A true copy of the Franchise
Agreement for this restaurant is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
8. Defendant Manchester Food Franchise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
-6-
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 7001 Manchester Blvd., Suite G,
Alexandria, Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated July 8, 2017. The terms and
conditions contained in this Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in
Exhibit 1.
9. Defendant Falls Church Food, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 101 E. Annandale Road, Falls Church, Virginia pursuant
to a Franchise Agreement dated July 8, 2017. The terms and conditions contained in this
Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 1.
10. Defendant Seven Corners Food Franchise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 6138 Arlington Blvd., Unit E, Falls Church,
Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated August 13, 2014. The terms and conditions
contained in this Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 1.
11. Defendant Fallschurch BJ’s Food LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 6607 Wilson Blvd., BJ’s Club #351, Falls Church,
Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated September 11, 2016. The terms and
Exhibit 1.
12. Defendant Prayosha Food Franchises, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 500 Meadowbrook Drive, Suite 260,
Culpeper, Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated August 17, 2017. The terms and
Exhibit 1.
13. Defendant PWS Food Franchise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
-7-
operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 14200 Smoketown Road, Woodbridge, Virginia,
pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated December 23, 2014. The terms and conditions
14. Defendant Woodbridge BJ’s Food LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 14123 Noblewood Plaza, BJ’s Club #41, Woodbridge,
Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated September 11, 2016. The terms and
Exhibit 1.
15. Defendant Sahajanand Krupa Food Franchise LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 145 W. Old Cross Road, New Market,
Virginia, pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated November 14, 2017. The terms and
Exhibit 1.
16. Defendant Luray Food Franchise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It
operates a combo Dunkin’/Baskin restaurant located at 1046 US Highway 211, Luray, Virginia
pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated October 13, 2017. The terms and conditions contained
in this Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 1.
17. Defendant Kelly’s Ridge Food Franchise LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 17020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Dumfries,
Virginia pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated November 16, 2018. The terms and
conditions contained in the Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in
Exhibit 1.
18. Defendant Carneys Point Food Franchise, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
-8-
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 327 Slapes Corner Road, All American
Plaza, Carneys Point, New Jersey pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated October 20, 2017.
The terms and conditions contained in this Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to
those set forth in Exhibit 1.
19. Defendant Woodstown Foods Franchise, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 300 West Ave, Unit C, Woodstown, New
Jersey pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated December 7, 2017. The terms and conditions
20. Defendant Pennsville Food Franchises LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 696 S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey
pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated May 9, 2015. The terms and conditions contained in
this Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 1.
21. Defendant Alpa Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a citizen
of the State of New Jersey. She personally guaranteed the obligations of the Franchisee
Defendants pursuant to personal guarantees executed in connection with each of the Franchise
Agreements.
22. Defendant Nitin Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a citizen
of the State of New Jersey. Nitin Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of eight of the
Franchisee Defendants pursuant to personal guarantees executed in connection with seven of the
Franchise Agreements.
23. Defendant Wael Kioumji is a natural person and, on information and belief, a
citizen of the State of New Jersey. Wael Kioumji personally guaranteed the obligations of seven
of the Franchisee Defendants pursuant to personal guarantees executed in connection with seven
-9-
of the Franchise Agreements.
24. Defendant Shakti Holding LLC is, upon information and belief, a New Jersey
limited liability company. It guaranteed the obligations of three of the Franchisee Defendants
pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with three of the Franchise Agreements.
25. Defendant Sweta Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a citizen
of Virginia. Sweta Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of three of the Franchisee
Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with three of the Franchise
Agreements.
26. Defendant Jayantibhai J. Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a
citizen of Virginia. Jayantibhai J. Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of one of the
Franchisee Defendants pursuant to a guarantee executed in connection with one of the Franchise
Agreements.
27. Defendant Vipul B. Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a
citizen of Virginia. Vipul Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of two of the Franchisee
Defendants pursuant to a guarantee executed in connection with one of the Franchise
Agreements.
28. Defendant Nikul Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a citizen
of New Jersey. Nikul Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of two of the Franchisee
Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with two of the Franchise
Agreements.
29. Defendant Shailesh V. Patel is a natural person and, on information and belief, a
citizen of Delaware. Shailesh Patel personally guaranteed the obligations of two of the
Franchisee Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with two of the Franchise
-10-
Agreements.
30. Defendant Jagruti Padhiyar is a natural person and, on information and belief, a
citizen of New Jersey. Jagruti Padhivar personally guaranteed the obligations of two of the
Franchisee Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with two of the Franchise
Agreements.
Jurisdiction
31. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to sections 34(a) and 39 of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(a) and 1121, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367.
32. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the
District.
33. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct or
conducted business in this District, a substantial part of the events giving rise to this dispute
occurred in this District, and upon information and belief, Defendants maintained bank accounts
in this District and received payments from customers in this District.
Background Facts
The Dunkin’ System and the Dunkin’ Marks
34. Dunkin’ Franchising is the franchisor of the Dunkin’ System for franchised
restaurants.
35. DD IP Holder LLC is the owner of the Dunkin’ Marks. Dunkin’ Franchising has
the exclusive license to use and license others to use the Dunkin’ Marks and, along with its
predecessors, has used them continuously since approximately 1950 to identify its restaurants
and the doughnuts, pastries, coffee, and other products associated with those restaurants.
-11-
36. DD IP Holder LLC owns numerous federal registrations for the Dunkin’ Marks.
Among those are Registration Nos. 748,901; 1,148,165; and 1,159,354. Each of these
registrations is in full force and effect, and is incontestable, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
37. The Dunkin’ Marks and trade name have been widely and continuously used in
interstate commerce for decades in connection with Dunkin’s restaurants and the doughnuts,
pastries, coffee, and other products associated with these restaurants.
38. The Dunkin’ Marks and trade name are inherently distinctive. Additionally, they
have been extensively used, promoted, and advertised, and thus are distinctive and famous
indicators of Dunkin’ and its properly licensed franchisees as sources of high quality goods and
services, generating valuable goodwill for Dunkin’.
39. The Dunkin’ Marks have been widely advertised and promoted by Dunkin’ over
the years. Between 1971 and 2016, Dunkin’ and its franchisees spent over $4 billion on
advertising and promoting the Dunkin’ Marks. Dunkin’ spent over $300 million in 2018 alone
on advertising and promotion.
40. Dunkin’ franchisees currently operate approximately 9,500 Dunkin’ restaurants in
the United States and over 3,000 restaurants internationally. Dunkin’ restaurants feature the
distinctive Dunkin’ trade dress, including the pink and orange color scheme, and the frankfurter
lettering style. In the more than sixty years since the Dunkin’ Franchise System began, hundreds
of millions of consumers have been served in Dunkin’ restaurants.
41. As a result of the extensive sales, advertising, and promotion of items identified
by the Dunkin’ Marks, the public has come to know and recognize the Dunkin’ Marks, and to
associate them exclusively with products and services offered by Dunkin’ franchisees. The
Dunkin’ Marks are famous. They are among the best and most widely known and recognized
-12-
trademarks in the United States today, and are assets of inestimable value to Dunkin’,
representing and embodying Dunkin’s considerable goodwill and favorable reputation.
42. The goodwill and reputation associated with the Dunkin’ Marks are harmed or
subject to being harmed when a franchisee operates a Dunkin’ franchise contrary to the standards
and requirements established by the franchise agreement, including the obligation to obey all
laws in the operation of the business.
The Baskin System and the Baskin Marks
43. Baskin Franchising is the franchisor of the Baskin System for franchised
restaurants.
44. BR IP Holder LLC is the owner of the Baskin Marks. Baskin Franchising has the
exclusive license to use and license others to use the Baskin Marks and, along with its
predecessors, has used them continuously since approximately 1947 to identify its ice cream
stores, and the ice cream and other products associated with those stores.
45. BR IP Holder LLC owns numerous federal registrations for the Baskin Marks.
Each of these registrations is in full force and effect, and most of them are incontestable pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
46. The Baskin Marks and trade name have been widely and continuously used in
interstate commerce for decades in connection with ice cream stores and the ice cream and other
products associated with those stores.
47. The Baskin Marks and trade name and inherently distinctive. Additionally, they
have been extensively used, promoted, and advertised, and are thus distinctive and famous
indicators of Baskin and its properly licensed franchisees as sources of high quality goods and
services, generating valuable goodwill for Baskin.
-13-
48. Baskin and its franchisees currently operate approximately 2,500 stores in the
United States and approximately 4,250 stores outside of the United States. Baskin stores feature
the distinctive Baskin’ trade dress. In the more than sixty years since the Baskin system began,
millions of consumers have been served in Baskin stores.
49. As a result of the extensive sales, advertising, and promotion of items identified
by the Baskin Marks, the public has come to know and recognize the Baskin Marks, and to
associate them exclusively with products and services offered by Baskin and its franchisees. The
Baskin Marks are famous. They are among the best and most widely known trademarks in the
United States today, and are assets of inestimable value to Baskin, representing and embodying
Baskin’s considerable goodwill and favorable reputation.
50. The goodwill and reputation associated with the Baskin Marks are harmed or
subject to being harmed when a franchisee operates a Baskin franchise contrary to the standards
and requirements established by the franchise agreement, including the obligation to obey all
laws in the operation of the business.
Defendants’ Obligations Under the Franchise Agreements
51. Defendants were formerly licensed to use Dunkin’s and Baskin’s trade names,
trademarks, and trade dress in accordance with the terms of the Franchise Agreements.
52. Under the terms of the Franchise Agreements, Defendants agreed that they would
comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and orders of public authorities
pertaining to the occupancy, operation, and maintenance of their Restaurant Premises (the “Obey
All Laws” provision). (Franchise Agreements1 § 7.1.)
53. Defendants agreed to keep and maintain the business records of the franchise as
1
As above, the Franchise Agreements under which the Franchisee Defendants operate are
substantially similar in their entirety. Accordingly, they are collectively referred to as the
“Franchise Agreements.”
-14-
required by law and in a form and manner as Dunkin’ and Baskin may mandate. (Id. § 11.0.)
54. Defendants agreed to make available and produce the franchise’s books and
records to Dunkin’ and Baskin. (Id. § 11.2.)
55. Defendants agreed not to perform any act or offense injurious or prejudicial to the
goodwill associated with the Dunkin’ Marks and System or the Baskin Marks and System. (Id. §
10.1.)
56. Defendants agreed that they would not commit a fraud upon Dunkin’, Baskin, or a
third party relating to a business franchised or licensed by Dunkin’ or Baskin. (Id. § 14.0.4.)
57. Defendants also agreed not to use the business franchised by Dunkin’ or Baskin
for any unauthorized purpose. (Id. § 14.0.5.)
58. No cure period was available to Defendants under the Franchise Agreements if
they defaulted under any section designated in 14.0.2 through 14.0.6 or if they otherwise
committed an act of fraud with respect to the performance of any obligation under the
Agreement. (Id. § 14.2.)
59. Each Franchise Agreement contained a “cross-default” provision, which
permitted termination if Dunkin’ or Baskin terminated “any other franchise agreement with
[Defendants] or any affiliated entity by reason of a default under sections 14.0.3, 14.0.4 or
14.0.5.” (Id. § 14.0.6.)
Defendants’ Violations of the Franchise Agreements
60. Federal law prohibits the hiring or continued employment of individuals who are
not authorized to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a). To ensure compliance with this
requirement, the governing statute establishes an employment verification system. The statute
requires the employer to execute an I-9 employment eligibility verification form for each
-15-
employee at the time that employee is hired, attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the
employer has verified the employee’s identity and employment eligibility by examining one or a
combination of specified documents. Id. § 1324a(b)(1)(A). The employer must retain its I-9
Forms and make them available for inspection. Id. § 1324a(b)(3).
61. Dunkin’ and Baskin conducted a review from January through October 2018 of
the Franchisee Defendants’ employment and tax records dating back to January 2016.2
62. Dunkin’s and Baskin’s review included employees’ employment applications, I-9
employment eligibility verification form, W-4 withholding allowance certificates, E-Verify
records, and timecards, as well as the Franchisee Defendants’ payroll registers, employee work
schedules, general ledgers, and federal tax returns.
63. Dunkin’s and Baskin’s review demonstrated pervasive noncompliance with the
Federal law provisions identified above, which also resulted in violation of the “Obey All Laws”
provision in section 7.1 of the Franchise Agreements.
64. In the review, Dunkin’ and Baskin found severe deficiencies in the Franchisee
Defendants’ employment documentation (including I-9 forms). For the employees for whom
documentation was provided, the majority of the documentation was incomplete and non-
compliant. For instance, over 200 I-9 forms were incomplete and missing the employer’s
verification. Further, over 200 I-9 forms listed non-compliant identity and employment
authorization documentation. Many of the I-9 forms had expired at the time of completion, and
there were no I-9 forms for some of the Franchisee Defendants’ employees.
65. In addition, the Franchisee Defendants submitted a number of falsified I-9

2
The only Franchisee Defendant that was not included in the review was Defendant Kelly’s
Ridge Food Franchise LLC. That franchise was in development but not yet open when Dunkin’
and Baskin conducted the review. As discussed below, the findings of the review nonetheless
triggered the cross-default provision in the Kelly’s Ridge Food Franchise LLC Franchise
Agreement.
-16-
employment eligibility verification forms to Dunkin’ and Baskin for review that were issued by
the government after the date upon which the Franchisee Defendants certified on the form that
they were purportedly signed by the Franchisee Defendants’ employees.
66. Dunkin’ and Baskin noted that these deficiencies were present with respect to
each of the Franchisee Defendants.
67. The foregoing facts demonstrate violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)–(b).
Accordingly, Franchisee Defendants have violated the “Obey All Laws” provision in section 7.1
of the Franchise Agreements, which required them to “comply with all civil and criminal laws,
ordinances, rules, regulations and rules, regulations, ordinances, and orders of public
authorities.”
68. Franchisee Defendants have also violated additional provisions of the Franchise
Agreements. In particular, they have permitted the use of the franchised businesses for an
unauthorized purpose – the conduct of a hiring process not in accordance with federal law – in
violation of section 14.0.5 of the Franchise Agreements. Through their failure to obtain or
maintain required employment documentation, Franchisee Defendants failed to maintain
complete and accurate business records in violation of section 11.0 of the Franchise Agreements.
By providing inaccurate and misleading information to Dunkin’s and Baskin’s investigators, and
operating the franchised businesses for unauthorized purposes, Franchisee Defendants violated
section 14.0.4 of the Franchise Agreements. Their violations also constituted acts “injurious or
prejudicial to the goodwill associated with [Dunkin’s and Baskin’s] Proprietary Marks and
System,” in violation of section 10.1 of the Franchise Agreements. These are material,
noncurable breaches of the Franchise Agreements.
69. Dunkin’ and Baskin further discovered that the Franchisee Defendants were not
-17-
using the E-Verify website to determine the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the
United States, despite the fact that they received communications from Dunkin’ and Baskin
informing them that the use of E-Verify was a required brand standard. In a September 18, 2018
interview, Defendant Alpa Patel admitted to Dunkin’ and Baskin that she had not used E-Verify
for new hires, that she did not begin doing so until she was notified of Dunkin’s and Baskin’s
investigation, and that the E-Verify reports submitted to Dunkin’ and Baskin for review were run
by Defendants only after she was notified of Dunkin’s and Baskin’s investigation.
70. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Franchise
Agreements, on October 12, 2018, Dunkin’ and Baskin served Defendants with a Notice of
Default and Termination. A true copy of the Notice of Default and Termination is attached as
Exhibit 2 to this Complaint. The Notice terminated the Virginia Franchise Agreements3 effective
immediately and the New Jersey Franchise Agreements sixty (60) days following Defendants’
receipt of the Notice, stated the grounds for termination, and requested that Defendants comply
with their post-termination obligations as set forth in the Franchise Agreements.
71. Based on the cross-default provision in the Franchise Agreement with Kelly’s
Ridge Food Franchise LLC, on April 9, 2019, Dunkin’ served Defendants Kelly’s Ridge Food
Franchise LLC, Alpa Patel, Nitin Patel, and Vipul B. Patel with a Notice of Default and
Termination. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Default and Termination is attached as
Exhibit 3 to this Complaint. The Notice terminated the Franchise Agreement effective
immediately and requested that Defendants comply with their post-termination obligations as set
forth in the Franchise Agreement.

3
The Franchise Agreement with Defendant Kelly’s Ridge Food Franchise LLC was not
terminated on October 12, 2018. As discussed in the Notice, the grounds for termination were
not discovered until that franchise was already in development. Ex. 2 at 5. Dunkin’ expressly
reserved its rights with respect to that franchise (id.) and subsequently terminated that Franchise
Agreement. See ¶ 72, infra.
-18-
72. Despite the Notice, Defendants have not confirmed their acceptance of the
termination and are continuing, impermissibly, to operate the franchised businesses using the
Dunkin’ and Baskin Marks and Systems.
COUNT I
(Breach of Contract—Failure to Obey Federal Law as Required)
73. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 72 are hereby incorporated by reference.
74. The Franchisee Defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §
1324a(a)–(b) constitutes a material breach of the obligations set forth in section 7.1 of the
Franchise Agreements that require the Franchisee Defendants to comply with all laws applicable
to their restaurants. This breach is applicable to the Guarantor Defendants through the various
guarantees they executed in connection with the Franchise Agreements.
75. Dunkin’ and Baskin have performed their obligations under the Franchise
Agreements.
76. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Dunkin’ and Baskin have suffered and are
continuing to suffer irreparable injury, and have incurred and are continuing to incur monetary
damage in an amount that has yet to be determined.
COUNT II
(Trademark Infringement)
78. The use in commerce of the Dunkin’ and Baskin Marks and trade names by the
Franchisee Defendants outside the scope of the Franchise Agreements and without Dunkin’s and
Baskin’s consent is likely to confuse or deceive the public into believing, contrary to fact, that
the unauthorized activities of the Franchisee Defendants are licensed, franchised, sponsored,
authorized, or otherwise approved by Dunkin’ and Baskin. Such unauthorized use of Dunkin’s
-19-
and Baskin’s trademarks and trade names infringes their exclusive rights in their trademarks
under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and applicable state law. These acts are
applicable to the Guarantor Defendants through the various guarantees they executed in
connection with the Franchise Agreements.
79. The acts of Defendants were and are being done knowingly and intentionally to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
80. As a result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered and are
COUNT III
(Unfair Competition as to all Defendants)
82. The use in commerce of Dunkin’s and Baskin’s trademarks and trade names by
the Franchisee Defendants outside the scope of the Franchise Agreements and without the
consent of Dunkin’ and Baskin is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as
to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of their goods, services, or commercial activities by
another person. Such unauthorized use of Dunkin’s and Baskin’s trademarks and trade names
violates Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and applicable state law. These acts
are applicable to the Guarantor Defendants through the various guarantees they executed in
connection with the Franchise Agreements
-20-
COUNT IV
(Trade Dress Infringement as to all Defendants)
86. The Franchisee Defendants’ shops are identified by signs, exterior appearance,
packaging, containers, and other items on which the words “Dunkin’ Donuts” and “Baskin-
Robbins” appear in the same lettering style and in the same distinctive color scheme as Dunkin’
and Baskin use for the doughnut and ice cream shops operated by their licensees.
87. The use by the Franchisee Defendants of trade dress that is identical to the
Dunkin’ and Baskin trade dress outside the scope of the Franchise Agreements constitutes a false
designation of the origin of the Franchisee Defendants’ shops, which is likely to cause confusion,
or to cause mistake, or to deceive the public as to the affiliation, connection, or association of
their shops with the shops operated by Dunkin’ and Baskin licensees. Such adoption of Dunkin’
and Baskin trade dress violates Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and the
common law. These acts are applicable to the Guarantor Defendants through the various
guarantees they executed in connection with the Franchise Agreements.
COUNT V
(Breach of Contract—Additional Provisions)
-21-
91. The Franchisee Defendants have violated the Franchise Agreements by permitting
the use of the franchised businesses for an unauthorized purpose, in violation of section 14.0.5 of
the Franchise Agreements. Through their failure to obtain or maintain required employment
documentation, the Franchisee Defendants have failed to maintain complete and accurate
business records, in violation of section 11.0 of the Franchise Agreements. The provision of
inaccurate or misleading information to Dunkin’s and Baskin’s investigators, and the use of the
franchised businesses for an unauthorized purpose, further violated section 14.0.4 of the
Franchise Agreements. The Franchisee Defendants’ violations also constituted acts “injurious or
prejudicial to the goodwill associated with [Dunkin’s and Baskin’s] Proprietary Marks and
System,” in violation of section 10.1 of the Franchise Agreements. Finally, through their
violations of sections 14.0.4 and 14.0.5, the Franchisee Defendants’ breaches trigger the cross-
default provision in each of the Franchise Agreements. The Franchisee Defendants’ breaches of
the Franchise Agreements are material and noncurable. These breaches are applicable to the
Guarantor Defendants through the various guarantees they executed in connection with the
Franchise Agreements.
92. Dunkin’ and Baskin have performed all of their obligations under the Franchise
Agreements.
93. As a consequence of Defendants’ breaches of the Franchise Agreements, Dunkin’
and Baskin have incurred and will continue to incur monetary damages.
COUNT VI
(Breach of Contract—Declaratory Relief)
95. Defendants have violated the Franchise Agreements by failing to obey all laws as
required by section 7.1 of the Franchise Agreements and by permitting the use of the franchised
-22-
businesses for an unauthorized purpose, in violation of section 14.0.5 of the Franchise
Agreements. Through their failure to obtain or maintain required employment documentation,
Franchisee Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate business records, in violation of
section 11.0 of the Franchise Agreements. By providing inaccurate or misleading information to
Dunkin’s and Baskin’s investigators, and operating the franchised businesses for unauthorized
purposes, Franchisee Defendants violated section 14.0.4 of the Franchise Agreements. By
violating sections 14.0.4 and 14.0.5 of the Franchise Agreements, the Franchisee Defendants’
breaches triggered the cross-default provision in each of the Franchise Agreements. Their
violations also constituted acts “injurious or prejudicial to the goodwill associated with
[Dunkin’s and Baskin’s] Proprietary Marks and System,” in violation of section 10.1 of the
Franchise Agreements. Pursuant to section 14.2 of the Franchise Agreements and by operation
of law, Defendants’ breaches of the Franchise Agreements are material and noncurable. These
breaches are applicable to the Guarantor Defendants through the various guarantees they
executed in connection with the Franchise Agreements.
96. Dunkin’ and Baskin have performed all of their obligations under the Franchise
Agreements.
97. As a consequence of Defendants’ breaches of the Franchise Agreements, Dunkin’
and Baskin were entitled to and did give notice that the Franchise Agreements were terminated
in accordance with law. Defendants have not agreed that the termination was proper and are
continuing to operate the franchised businesses.
98. There is an actual and justiciable controversy regarding the termination, and
Dunkin’ and Baskin are entitled to a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02 that the
termination was proper under the terms of the Franchise Agreements and in accordance with law.
-23-
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Dunkin’ and Baskin request that this Court:
A. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and
severally, for the damages incurred by Dunkin’ and Baskin as a result of Defendants’ failure to
obey federal law as required, in an amount according to proof;
B. Enter a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs properly terminated the Franchise
Agreements in accordance with their terms and applicable law;
C. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and
severally, for the damages incurred as a result of Defendants’ breaches of the Franchise
Agreements, in an amount according to proof;
D. Enjoin Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from infringing upon
Plaintiffs’ trademarks, trade dress, and trade names and from otherwise engaging in unfair
competition with Plaintiffs.
E. Award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest in accordance with Section 35 of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
F. Enter an order requiring Defendants to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiffs,
within thirty days after the service upon Defendants of the injunction, a report in writing under
oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the
injunction;
G. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this
action, as provided in section 14.4.4 of the Franchise Agreements and Section 35 of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, including the costs incurred in conducting any and all necessary
inspections and audits; and
-24-
H. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: April 10, 2019 /s/ Justin L. Sallis

Eric L. Yaffe (pro hac vice to be filed)
Justin L. Sallis (VSB No. 82599)
Frank J. Sciremammano (pro hac vice to be filed)
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY
& BENNETT, P.A.
The Watergate – Suite 700
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 295-2200
Fax: (202) 295-2250
eric.yaffe@gpmlaw.com
julia.colarusso@gpmlw.com
frank.sciremammano@gpmlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-25-
Case 1:19-cv-00427-AJT-TCB Document 1-1 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 26
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
JS 44 (Rev. 02/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

DUNKIN' DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC, et al., MADI KRUPA FOOD, LLC, et al.,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Fairfax County, VA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty, Bennett P.A.
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Ste 700, The Watergate
Washington, DC 20037 (202) 295-2200
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. 1332(a)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Breach of Contract
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
04/10/2019 /s/ Justin L. Sallis
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 02/19)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Dunkin' Lawsuit Against Franchisees Over Undocumented Employees

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dunkin' Lawsuit Against Franchisees Over Undocumented Employees

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dunkin' Lawsuit Against Franchisees Over Undocumented Employees

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the case being filed?

What is the nature of the case being filed?

What parties are involved in the case?

What parties are involved in the case?

Case 1:19-cv-00427-AJT-TCB Document 1 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID# 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISING LLC,

MADI KRUPA FOOD, LLC,

a Virginia Limited Liability Company,

1. Plaintiff Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC (“Dunkin’ Franchising”) is a Delaware

It is engaged in the business of franchising independent businesspersons to operate Dunkin’

interior and exterior accessories, identification schemes, products, standards, specifications,

proprietary marks, and identification.

2. Plaintiff DD IP Holder LLC, successor-in-interest to Dunkin’ Donuts USA, Inc.,

IP Holder LLC are referred to collectively as “Dunkin’”.)

3. Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin Franchising”) is a Delaware

Massachusetts. Baskin is engaged in the business of franchising independent businesspersons to

schemes, products, management programs, standards, specifications, proprietary marks, and

4. Plaintiff BR IP Holder LLC, successor-in-interest to Baskin-Robbins

Franchising and BR IP Holder LLC are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Baskin-Robbins”

5. The sole member of Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC and Baskin-Robbins

Franchising LLC is DB Franchising Holding Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability

of DB Franchising Holding Company LLC, Plaintiff DD IP Holder LLC, and Plaintiff BR IP

Master Finance LLC is Baskin-Robbins International LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company. The sole member of Baskin-Robbins International LLC is Baskin-Robbins Flavors

all the foregoing entities is located in Canton, Massachusetts.

6. Dunkin’ and Baskin operate as separate corporations. However, they have

referred to as “combo” restaurants.

7. Defendant Madi Krupa Food, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It

Agreement for this restaurant is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.

8. Defendant Manchester Food Franchise, LLC is a Virginia limited liability

company. It operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 7001 Manchester Blvd., Suite G,

9. Defendant Falls Church Food, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company. It

Franchise Agreement are substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 1.

12. Defendant Prayosha Food Franchises, LLC is a Virginia limited liability

operates a Dunkin’ restaurant located at 14200 Smoketown Road, Woodbridge, Virginia,

those set forth in Exhibit 1.

of the Franchise Agreements.

pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with three of the Franchise Agreements.

Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with three of the Franchise

Defendants pursuant to a guarantee executed in connection with one of the Franchise

Defendants pursuant to guarantees executed in connection with two of the Franchise

32. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a

in this District and received payments from customers in this District.

The Dunkin’ System and the Dunkin’ Marks

pastries, coffee, and other products associated with these restaurants.

services, generating valuable goodwill for Dunkin’.

on advertising and promotion.

40. Dunkin’ franchisees currently operate approximately 9,500 Dunkin’ restaurants in

of millions of consumers have been served in Dunkin’ restaurants.

representing and embodying Dunkin’s considerable goodwill and favorable reputation.

laws in the operation of the business.

The Baskin System and the Baskin Marks

products associated with those stores.

services, generating valuable goodwill for Baskin.

millions of consumers have been served in Baskin stores.

Baskin’s considerable goodwill and favorable reputation.

laws in the operation of the business.

Defendants’ Obligations Under the Franchise Agreements