Submit a Complaint

Jan-pro

United States

Consumer complaints and reviews about Jan-pro

User70111 Send email
 
Apr 11, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Lying source, it looks like you are in Desperate mode to do anything and say anything to defend your employers jan-pro, janiking, coverall, stratus, and cleannet. You are predagist against imigrants but jan-pro, coverall, janiking, stratus and cleannet had no problem taking an immigrants money.

Now in your delusional mind you LIE and you say that I’m an illegal with out papers. Would you like to wager a BET! I can prove you wrong very easily but I don’t think you’re a man who would pay his bets. Your to scared to even tell me your name or how much jan-pro and the rest of the ponzi scheme franchisors pay you. You will never tell us who you are will you. You will keep hiding like a rat in a cave because you are not a man.
User70111 Send email
 
Apr 11, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

If you have been ripped-off by jan-pro or any other Ponzi Scheme cleaning franchise please report them to the FBI.

There is a special agent at the moment investigating another franchisor.

Agent / Victim Specialist Michelle Thorne, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI-Jacksonville, FL. [If you'd like Ms. Thorne's full contact information, please email ADMIN at [email protected]]
User640539 Send email
 
Apr 9, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, but you didn't deny that you were here illegally! You call me a racist for stating facts, you call me a racist because you are a criminal and I stated that fact. You claim that the "owners" of Jan-Pro are criminals, yet you are one without question yourself. Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle "Black" or Fortman.
User70111 Send email
 
Apr 9, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

To lying source, When jan-pro rips-off people, when jan-pro steals from families, when jan-pro steals there hard earned money people get Mad and they take legal action. I to could turn things around and say that the legal team that is defending jan-pro defends criminals. You are so desperate to defend the cleaning franchisors that pay you money to come here and defend them that you run out of ways to defend jan-pro, coverall and janiking. If jan-pro, janiking and coverall wouldn't be ripping of people then there wouldn't be hundreds of lawsuits, it's as simple as that.

lying source here is an example of your racist and derogatory remarks and why jan-pro is such a low life and desperate company. What you just posted = " You of course being an illegal alien here on expired visa should know that without issue". If anyone is looking at buying a jan-pro cleaning job this is the kind of people that you will deal with so be Warned! If you ever encounter a problem with them or have any issues they will turn to racist and derogatory remarks.
User640539 Send email
 
Apr 6, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, SEIU is the Union that is paying liss-riordin all of the money to go on this "witch hunt" as the CEO of Jan-Pro has stated in the past. You of course being an illegal alien here on expired visa should know that without issue.

Fortman, haven't heard from you in a while, I know you are busy brushing up on "how to play" in Federal Court, but maybe you could take a moment to respond to the numerous charges that I have made, so I can make fun of you, your old car, your child support payments in arrears, your lack of morals etc...
User70111 Send email
 
Apr 3, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Lying source, they are trying to take workers compensation away which wont last when they go to court, it isn’t final yet this is only more proof of a state going backwards. Lying source you sound like a complete Anarchist. I don’t know who the Seiu is but it looks like they have smacked you around in the past because you keep mentioning them all the time.

Finally lying source or churn will you ever tell us who you are or will you completely keep hiding like a Rat in a cave? You know who I’am. You know my name, my phone number. But you somehow are scared to tell us who you really are. Are you a Man or a mouse?

Tell us who you are or this will mean that you are simply a little chicken mouse.

If you have been ripped-off by Jan-pro or any other cleaning franchise don’t let them get away with it. You can do the following things.

1. Report them to the Federal Trade commission www.Ftc.gov

2. Report them to your States Attorney General. Gather a group of people and pay your Attorney General a visit and file a criminal complaint.

3. Gather a group of other people who have also been ripped-off by jan-pro and take legal action.

4. Picket jan-pros offices and warn other people not to invest there money with them.

5. You can call me or contact me and I can give you more information and a copy of the National Class Action Lawsuit that we have against jan-pro

Jerry
909-684-1837
[email protected]
User640539 Send email
 
Apr 2, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, Poor ole Bastard, Georgia just ruled against your "cause". Liss-riordin must not be too upset though, she has long moved on after she got the publicity for "her cause" which was simply to get more SEIU money in her coffers and is now attacking baggage handlers at Logan Airport.

Fortman, bad news for you as well. Looks like your going to have to go through even more hoops than you thought, seems that the Georgia ruling is working its way through some of the States that you 'illegally" reached out too in your most recent gaff of mailings outside your "legal reach". Have you started an affair with your newest staff member yet? Might want to start sooner vs. later, probably will have to let her go soon, it's ok, she can sue you for sexual harrassment letter and collect from your insurance company!
User640539 Send email
 
Mar 28, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, it drives you crazy not knowing who I am...That's why I don't tel you. I don't know where you've been, my guess is Mexico for an unpaid vacation, but what you are posting happened month's ago. Just because someone brings a case, doesn't make it true. Look at poor Aiwauh, poor dumb SOB, doesn't have a clue that after 7 Years of complaining, 4 Years of working with liss-riordin (being paid by SEIU funds) and going in/out of court, he will get absolutely NOTHING! Even the blowhards on BMM agree with the above, well they don't know that Mexico is your native land.

Fortman, awfully quiet, haven't heard from you in awhile. Things not going to well for you I hear...Maybe you can contact Liss-Riordin and see if AFSCME or AFL-CIO has some extra money lying around that they can send you to facilitate your false/worthless case against Stratus...I've challenged you before, still waiting on my "suit" to appear...Wait a second, didn't you get into trouble for mailing things, sending things, getting things out of State of Missouri? OOOOOOPS! I will be in St. Louis soon enough, maybe I'll stop by your office and introduce myself...You wouldn't mind would you? Give you a chance to look the "devil" in the eye...
User70111 Send email
 
Mar 28, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

To lying source or also known as Churned

Will you ever tell us your real name and your reason for attacking all the people who bought a fake cleaning franchise? How much are the Fake cleaning franchisors jan-pro, coverall, cleannet, stratus and janiking paying you to do Damage control?

Tell me your real name Churn / lying source or keep hiding like a Rat in a Cave.
User640539 Send email
 
Mar 27, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, as you continue to post nonsense on multiple sites, can't you even answer the simplest of questions...How much money has exchanged hands between Coverall and Aiwauh? NONE! How much money will exchange hands between Coverall and Aiwauh? NONE! How much money will you get from Jan-Pro? NONE! Now ask yourself, outside of Liss-Riordin, who got money on this deal of a lawsuit? NO ONE!

Fortman, try to keep up here, this is going to show you that your shame of a lawsuit will end up going no where just like Coverall's at the end of the day. Whether it is under Missouri Law or Federal Law, this will be getting you ZERO in the money cycle. I know you aren't a good businessman, your own statements have proven that time and time again, but even you can't be that stupid to continue YELLING at Windmills? Can you?
User70111 Send email
 
Mar 27, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

To lying source or should I say churn

I see that you are still giding like a Rat in a cave. Seriusly why are you so scared to say who you are???

Here is another article.

Cleaning company took franchise fees illegally, SJC rules
September 01, 2011 By Katie Johnston, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that Coverall North America Inc. illegally collected franchise fees from a worker, clearing the way for hundreds of workers involved in a class-action lawsuit against the cleaning company to be awarded millions of dollars in damages.

The ruling could have a significant impact on similar cases pending against five other cleaning companies in the state.

The decision follows a US District Court of Massachusetts ruling in March of 2010 that found that Coverall had misclassified the workers, the majority of them immigrants, charging them thousands of dollars apiece in franchise fees to establish their own cleaning companies, but treating them like regular employees.

“It’s a perverse system in which the workers are paying to do the work, ’’ said lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who is representing the Coverall workers and hundreds of others suing Jani-King International Inc., Jan-Pro Franchising International Inc., System4 Commercial Cleaning, CleanNet USA, and Westborough-based All Pro Cleaning Systems. She is also involved in cases against cleaning companies in California and Pennsylvania.

The SJC ruling could lead those cleaning companies, which use the same franchising model Coverall does, to settle their cases, leave the state, or change the way they operate, Liss-Riordan said.

“The commercial cleaning industry has been plagued by companies such as Coverall that make their money by profiting off of their own workers, ’’ Liss-Riordan said. “The ruling will have huge ramifications on the commercial cleaning industry, as well as the trucking industry, adult entertainment industry, and other industries that exploit their workers by misclassifying them as independent contractors.’’

Coverall officials could not be reach for comment.

The SJC’s ruling also entitles the former Coverall workers to recover worker’s compensation and other insurance fees that the company illegally deducted from their paychecks. In all, Coverall workers could be awarded tens of thousands of dollars each.

Diego Low, a coordinator at the Framingham-based Metrowest Worker Center who first introduced Liss-Riordan to a group of Coverall workers in 2004, said he is pleased that the immigrants with whom he works will get their money back.

“It was a situation that was clearly predicated on vulnerable people who because of language and because of status would be easy to rip off, ’’ Low said. “There are hundreds of people out there in this state who lost three or four years of savings to these schemes.’’
User640539 Send email
 
Mar 26, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, articles mean nothing...Let's see how much money actually exchanges hands...My bet, Not a penny!
1st Amendment Send email
 
Mar 25, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Coverall Looses, Coverall to Pay Triple Damages!

A good article just came out on Bluemaumau.org you can read the full article by going to the following link.

Coverall to Pay Triple Damages Posted Sat, 2012/03/17 - 21:53 by Janet Sparks

BOSTON – A federal judge ruled last Thursday that Coverall North America must pay triple damages to hundreds of workers classified as franchisees instead of employees, dating back from 2006. Previously, he had ruled that the court would triple damages from 2010. That changes the calculation of damages dramatically, adding the four year period.

In addition to the award on damages, the global janitorial cleaning franchisor will have to pay all the initial franchise fees and additional business fees, as well as recovering insurance deductions. The judge said those fees were unlawful and can be recovered as provided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, representing the class plaintiffs, said they were excited about the order. “We are very pleased that the workers who did not have arbitration agreements will be getting a judgment, and can finally see a conclusion to their case, ” she declared.

Liss-Riordan said the parties were given 30 days to submit what final calculations are based on from this order. She added, “We are now looking forward to the judge’s further rulings on the workers who had arbitration agreements. That will be the next step.”

The case, Awuah v Coverall North America Inc., has been closely watched by the franchise community since it began in 2007. The original complaint filed by eight purported franchisees alleges that they were misclassified as independent contractors instead of the reality of being employees. They accused Coverall of not providing the promised volume of cleaning contracts to them after they paid $6, 000 to $30, 000.
1st Amendment Send email
 
Mar 25, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Here is the link to the full article up above

http://www.bluemaumau.org/11385/coverall_pay_triple_damages
Informed Source Send email
 
Mar 25, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, wish I could have physically seen your face when your 2nd hero in Richard Solomon informed you/the whole web wide world that there will be NOTHING to collect in regards to Coverall...Oh how I wish. Wonder how that makes you feel after over 2 Years of me telling you that the only winner in this entire mess is Liss-Riordin! Not because she is going to get a Penny of her supposed fee's paid by Coverall, but because she has been getting Union Money all along, her Marketing of herself, her firm, her brand has resulted in a multitude of cases all of which are paying her monthly stipends at the very least! What is poor old Aiwauh getting, You getting ZERO!!! So let me ask you a simple question posted by a simple man, WHAT'S NEXT?

Fortman, maybe you could call on Richard to help you with your case, makes me wonder why he didn't sue on behalf of "others" like you? I know the answer, but let's see if you are smart enough to figure it out on your own...
Informed Source Send email
 
Mar 22, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, you continue to drink the Kool- Aid of liss-riordin, why isn't she jumping for joy? Because she realizes everything I said in regards to this being a futile effort are true! Even on blue mau mau.com is there any major victory dances happening? Even usually supportive attorney's are questioning the enforcement, what this may mean outside of MASS will be nothing! Where have you been hearing that from for over two years? Little ole me!

Fortman, time for you to get some "big boy pants on". Hear things are chaning for you in regards to jurisdiction! Have you caught up with all of your past due child support payments? Would you like unhappyfranchisee.com to run a special telethon for you? They do it for themselves at least once per year...Wouldn't hurt to ask! Maybe when I'm in St. Louis soon, I could come by and meet you face to face, that way you can attempt to "man up"!
1st Amendment Send email
 
Mar 19, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

To Lying Source,

Like always you Lie and you are still afraid to tell us who you are. Why wont lying source tell us who he is? Why are you so AFRAID to tell us who you are ???
Informed Source Send email
 
Mar 16, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment and Jonathan Fortman, Well lets see, Judge Young's ruling was delayed, not because of settlement talks that good ole 1st amendment would like, but because he cant seem to get his "head" around the fact that these people signed agreeing to arbitration and now he can't see how to figure damages, since these people bypassed the arbitration part of the contract. Another issue at hand happens to be the monies that were already paid to the former franchisees by Coverall when they were actually performing, acceptance of those monies by the former franchisees have become a "sticking point" in the contract...Oh Well, at the end of the day its still MASS what the hell is written in contracts is certainly secondary to the facts the SEIU and Big Labor in general want damages to be awarded in this case.

Big shout out to my friend Fortman, here things aren't going well in the Stratus case for you, though you are getting "inside information" from a former Master (who by the way really did rip-off a ton of franchisees and should be prosecuted criminally in my opinion) it seems that you have run into that nasty roadblock of truth! I'm sure you will figure a way around it, but you made need to go get another ice-tea and have your kids tell you about the facts of life again...Maybe you can get a little "somethin, somethin" from your newest addition from TEAM FORTMAN, I'm sure your current wife won't care as she was the "side piece" in your first marriage...
1st Amendment Send email
 
Mar 3, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

The following is what Attorney Richard Solomon recently posted on another website.

" Jan Pro is an excellent example of a bozo franchise that I have vetted for over a dozen investors. Not one of my clients bought one of these fanchises.

The story of janitorial franchising is that they are sold with a promise of a guaranteed initial inventory of building maintenance contracts so that you start out "making money". Most of the time these deals either don't produce even enough start up revenue to enable you to do the work and also go out and scout up your own additional building maintenance accounts, or if they are good accounts they are soon taken from you and given to another new franchisee.

It is easy to take a building account from a janitorial franchisee. The rep goes to see the account and tells them that they have conducted a follow up inspection of the work you have been doing and have found it to be less than proper. They will happpily replace you with a better operator to assure their total satisfaction with the service. The building manager signs off on your being fired and you are toast in that account and in any other account of that building management organization. These franchiors typically lack sufficient actual on hand accounts to provide a start up customer base for new franchisees signed on. So they just go take buildings away from recently signed franchisees and give them to the newbies.

Even in the best of situations the ability to go get a building janitorial account on your own is nothing like you are told in training or on "discovery day".

You always end up doing toilets yourself because you lack funds to hire help. Often your wife and kids are doing toilets with you to try to get it going.

This is a perfect segment of franchising where competent pre investment vetting by someone who knows the industry can save you from financial ruin."
1st Amendment Send email
 
Mar 3, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Another Post that I saw by Attorney Richard Solomon

" There is a janitorial franchise joke in America. The janitorial franchisee is known as a Janitor In A Drum. Janitor In A Drum is a cleaning solution product that comes in a can shaped like a 55 gallon drum. The joke is that when you buy a janitorial franchise you become - in the financial sense of it - a janitor in a drum.

There are other janitor in a drum jokes but they wouldn't pass muster on BMM."
Informed Source Send email
 
Mar 3, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment, fortman: As I have said time and time again, you win in the Socialist/Communist State of MASS. What more do you want? Has there been any money exchange hands so far? (I mean besides the misused Union Dues from SEIU to Liss-Riordin) the answer is NO! In fact, the only one with an actual judgement against them is Aiwah...Poor ole, test case Aiwah...
1st Amendment Send email
 
Feb 29, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

Judge certifies class of cleaning workers misclassified as 'franchisees'

The National Law Journal

By Sheri Qualters February 13, 2012

A Boston federal judge has certified as a class a broad swath of
purported franchisees of cleaning company Coverall North America
Inc. who are suing the company for misclassifying them as
independent contractors instead of employees.
In a Feb. 10 order in Awuah v. Coverall North America Inc., Judge
William Young of the District of Massachusetts defined the class as
individuals who owned a Coverall franchise and performed work for Coverall customers
in Massachusetts at any time since Feb. 15, 2004, who didn't sign an arbitration
agreement or have their claims previously adjudicated.
Young's recent ruling expanded the class he certified on Sept. 22, 2011, to include
some people who obtained a franchise through transfer. The class includes individuals
who became franchise owners through a consent-to-transfer agreement but did not
receive a copy of Coverall's franchise offering circular, which outlined terms of the
janitorial franchise agreements, including mandatory arbitration.
Eight named plaintiffs claimed in their February 2007 complaint that the company
misclassified franchisees as independent contractors. They also alleged Coverall did
not provide the promised volume of cleaning work to franchisees who paid $6, 000 to
$30, 000. And they claimed Coverall targeted immigrants who do not speak English as a
first language or fully understand the company's legal documents.
Since they are employees, the plaintiffs contend that the company is liable for minimum
wage, overtime and wage law violations. The legal claims include breach of contract,
misrepresentation, deceptive and unfair business practices and unjust enrichment.

In March 2010, Young granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the
misclassification claim. In that ruling, he found that Coverall did not meet the second
prong of the state's three-part test that defines independent contractors, which requires
workers to provide services that are "independent, separate and distinct" from the
employers' business.
The other two parts of the test require independent contractors to be "free from control
and direction in connection with the performance of the service" and customarily
engaged in the same trade, profession or occupation that they're doing contractually.
In his Feb. 10 ruling, Young expanded the class to include people who didn't sign an
arbitration agreement and get notice of the arbitration agreement, so "it's a pretty
straightforward commonsense ruling, " said one of the plaintiffs' lawyers on the case,
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan. "People can't be bound by an
arbitration agreement that they didn't get notice of or a copy of."
Liss-Riordan said the plaintiffs are looking forward to Young's pending ruling on the
"illusoriness" or validity of Coverall's arbitration agreement. "We have challenged the
arbitration agreement as a whole, " Liss-Riordan said.
She also said the case "raises very interesting questions about whether companies
really want to compel hundreds of individuals to go to arbitration or [whether they] are
they hoping they can deter people."
"This case is showing these issues are not going to go away, " Liss-Riordan said." It's
going to be even more expensive and complicated [for companies]."
The plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment on damages, which is slated for
hearing on Feb. 14, based on Young's March 2010 ruling. They're seeking several types
of damages, including: $916, 844.65 for initial franchise fees and additional business
fees; $894, 433.78 for insurance deductions: $106, 535.77 for funds collected to offset
unpaid customer bills; and $122, 932.25 for interest on late payments.
The plaintiffs are also asking for triple damages based on a 2008 amendment to the
Massachusetts law concerning unpaid wages that allowed for the increase in damages.
Aside from that change, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2005
in Wiedmann v. The Bradford Group that courts can treble damages for unpaid wages
when there is a showing of "outrageous[ness], because of a defendant's evil motive
or…reckless indifference" to workers' rights."
"He'll either assess the damages based on the papers or will have a trial in March to
determine those damages for the class members, " Liss-Riordan said.
Liss-Riordan said those amounts don't include fees paid by class members before
February 2004 and after June 2010, or fees paid by the class members added by

Young's Feb. 10 ruling. Neither fee category has been calculated, she said.
Lawyers at DLA Piper who represent Coverall were not available to discuss the case.
Coverall did not respond to a request for comment.
Informed Source Send email
 
Feb 27, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

1st amendment as you continue to amaze people in regards to how stupid you and Fortman are, let me give you some facts about the companies you continue to blame for your lot in life...Maybe Fortman can help show you a path to success that he has because he has done so well financially and in such good standing as the following:
a) Behind on his child support payments
b) Drives a 250k mile Mercedes that is probably worth as much as your cardboard house in Mexico City.
c) Buys Ice-Tea in great quantities because he used to be a drunk
d) Sleeps with as many assistants as his measly pocketbook can afford and then marries them after a long in-office affair
e) Is trying desperately to get money from SEIU to fund his "wild goose chase" as Liss-Riordin did.

Facts for you, 1st amendment...

Jani-Kings yearly sales volume is over 2 Billion Dollars now. I would think you would need at least 20K owner-operators, plus their employee's to perform that kind of work volume.

Jan-Pros yearly sales volume is over 400 Million Dollars now. I would think you would need at least 10K owner-operators, plus their employee's to perform that kind of work volume.

Coveralls yearly sales volume is over 500 million Dollars now. I would think you would need at least 12k owner-operators, plus their employee's to perform that kind of work volume.

Vanguard, Stratus, OpenWorks, Corvus, Bonus, Anago and others on the "next tier" are doing over 500 million dollars combined in sales. I would think you would need at least 15k owner-operators, plus their employee's to perform that kind of work volume.

Bottom line is 1st amendment, Fortman, Liss-Riordin the unlawful courts in MASS and others, the facts are the following: Vast majority of owner-operators are hard working, loyal, honest, good listeners, trust worthy, honest business owners. They LOVE their businesses and take great care of their customers and work well with the Masters and Corporate Officers of these companies. Problem is with SEIU money and others, this industry (yes, even those running "traditional companies" are under attack from SEIU and the Obama Administration every day!
Your Mom Knows Best Send email
 
Feb 23, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

lol complaintsboard
1st Amendment Send email
 
Feb 23, 2012

Less than Minimum Wage!

To Lying source,

I see that you still wont tell us your NAME? Why are you so SCARED to tell us your NAME? It looks like you are still a COWARD for not telling us your NAME.

This is a long list of the so many Lawsuits and settlements against cleaning franchisors ! It's only a partial list. I will post more later.

Jesus H, Castro and Herschand Co. v. The Kover Group. Inc. dba Coverall of South Florida. Mauro R. Guerra. individually, and Management Risk Group.iFinancial Corp.. (Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 97-8090-CA21), filed April 11, 1997. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, rescission of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. They claim they purchased a franchise and were not provided the appropriate amount of business. The plaintiffs claim damages in excess of $100, 000. We have denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in November 1997. The case was settled on August 24, 2007, and Coverall agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $20, 000.

Yared Bevene. et al v. Coverall of [sic] North America. Inc, , , Pacific Commercial Services. LLC. Coverall Cleaning Concepts and Coverall of Nashville. Inc. (Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. 06-1202), filed May 12, 2006. There were five named plaintiffs who purported to be franchisees of Coverall or Coverall''s Service Franchisee, Pacific Commercial Services, LLC ("PCS")- The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on June 22, 2006 and assigned Case No. 3:06-0628. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on October 17, 2006 adding two additional plaintiffs. Mediation was held on September 13, 2007, and the case was settled. Coverall paid the seven Plaintiffs, five putative plaintiffs, and their attorney $37, 500.

Jubilee General Contracting LTD. et al v. Coverall North America, Inc.. et al. (State of Michigan, County of Oakland), Case No. 07-080927-C2, filed February 20, 2007. Plaintiffs claim that they were fraudulently induced to accept two cleaning contracts; because they were shown documents by Defendant JLAG Janitorial Service, LLC that contained erroneous data about expenses related to the two accounts. On September 6, 2007, Coverall paid the plaintiffs the sum of $14, 200.00; and plaintiffs waived their right to appeal, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on July 25, 2007.

Isam Yonis v. Coverall North America. Inc., (Circuit Court of Williamson County, Tennessee, Case No. 04695), filed November 9, 2004. Plaintiff filed a one count Complaint alleging unspecified violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We filed a Motion for More Definite Statement, which was never answered. The case was settled on January 8, 2007 for $12, 500. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2007.

Bradley Carter v. Coverall North America. Inc. (Broward County, Florida, Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Case No. Case No. 06-011532(08), filed on August 2, 2006. Coverall moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. In lieu of a response, Carter filed a First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on October 9, 2006. The Amended Complaint alleged breach of contract and violation of �559 of the Florida Statutes pertaining to business opportunities. Coverall moved to dismiss the complaint based upon failure to engage in mediation, statute of limitations grounds and the inapplicability of �559 of the Florida Statutes to franchises. The parties mediated the dispute on December 19, 2006 and Coverall paid the Plaintiff $20, 000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 26, 2006.

Machado. et al v. Coverall North America. Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case No. 05 CA 11884 RGS), filed September 16, 2005. Plaintiffs, eleven current and former franchisees, filed this purported class action variously claiming that they were misclassified as independent contractors and that they were or are employees of Coverall; breach of their Janitorial Franchise Agreements; misrepresentations regarding the time necessary to clean customer accounts and the location of customer accounts; underbidding of customer contracts; and unfairly targeting franchise candidates with limited English language skills. Coverall filed arbitration demands against ten of the Plaintiffs. The case was settled and Coverall paid $300, 000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 19, 2006; as were all pending claims filed by Coverall against the Plaintiffs.

"Vazquez, et al v. Security Insurance Company of Hartford, (District Court, 166th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas, Case No. 2004-C1-17880), filed on December 3, 2004. Coverall was one of seven defendants. Plaintiffs, former franchisees of ASK Services, Inc., a former Service Franchisee of ours, claimed that we violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act by instigating a scheme to "profit from premiums paid by Plaintiffs" to participate in a workers'' compensation program. None of the named Plaintiffs ever paid anything to us. The case was settled and the case was dismissed with prejudice on January 24, 2006. Coverall contributed $13, 000 to the settlement.

Jamil Abuajina v. Advantage Cleaning Corporations, Coverall North America. Inc.. (Jefferson County, Colorado, District Court, Case. No. 03CV1181), filed April 18, 2003. Jamil Abuajina, a Coverall franchisee, variously claimed that Coverall breached the Janitorial Franchise Agreement by failing to provide him with sufficient accounts to service and by providing him with troubled accounts. Abuajina also alleged violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act claiming that Coverall made false representations to him about the accounts it would provide to him. The case was settled and Coverall paid $30, 000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 22, 2005.

Rhina Alvarenga v. Coverall of North America d/b/a Coverall Cleaning Concepts and Coverall of Boston. Sunrise Senior Living. Inc. d/b/a Sunrise of Arlington, et al (Superior Court, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No. MICV2005-01782-A), filed on May 2, 2005 and Amended on August 8, 2005. Plaintiff, a former Coverall franchisee, filed this eleven count complaint against Coverall and one of its customers, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. ("Sunrise"), variously alleging common law fraudulent inducement, and claimed damages in the amount of $19, 654.11; violation of the Massachusetts General Laws 93A; the right to rescission; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Massachusetts Minimum

Fair Wage Act; violation of timely payment of wages statute; overtime violations under the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act; and unjust enrichment. The case was settled and Coverall paid.

Complaint Registration Form

    Information of the Company you are complaining about
    Subject of Complaint
    City (optional)
    Complaint Details
    Attach photos (optional)
    Confirmation code

    Submit

         
     

    User Registration

    Already a Complaint Board member? Log in now.
    Username:
    E-mail address:
    Password:
    Code:
    or connect with Facebook

    User Registration

    A confirmation email was sent to "".
    To confirm your account, please click the link in the message.

    If you don't see the email in your Inbox, please check your Spam box.

    User Login

    Not a member of Complaint Board? Register now.
    E-mail address:
    Password:
    Forgot your password?
    E-mail address:
    Back
    Loading, please wait...
    Your password has been sent to the specified email address. Log in
    or connect with Facebook

    User Facebook Login

    Enter Username