COVERALL Franchise Complaints

188 thoughts on “COVERALL Franchise Complaints”

• SEIU: Wow!!!! Your good, so good in fact, here’s something for you, evidently there’s a little “back chatter”. New Leadership at SEIU has informed “Liz and her very unhappy, stressed out, drunk not so merry band of attorneys” they have limited time and now limited resources to make this Suit work, or the FUNDING is cut off.

  Got to give 1st amendment a few more sleepless nights. Can’t be too much fun for you either.

  Final Say: You want to threaten me, BRING IT ON!!! I’ll cut you worse than Bego and EMS ever did!!!!!!!

• Is Coverall Mountain & Pacific the same company as Coverall North America?…. the sale manager told me that its difference company….is that true?……..any ideas?

• Yes and No: They are a “master licensee” for Coverall North America. ServiceMaster had the same setup a few decades back. Though the actual management of Coverall Mountain and Pacific is different, they are part of the same brand.

  Bottom line is, same business model, basically the same name, but different owner/executive management.

  Sorry, I had to answer, 1st amendment is out trying to find his wife to take out for dinner. SEIU is out playing hide and seek with his new best friend Todoro and the other “players” on this site are out getting drunk because the actual Leader of the SEIU informed them they are about to lose their gravey train.

• I asked this about Jan-Pro and have the same questions about Coverall.

  Which specific Coverall Master franchisees have the worst reputations? Which have the most complaints against them, either in lawsuits or on the internet from franchisees?

  Are there any with good reputations and no franchisee complaints?

  If there are any good ones, why don’t they speak up on here and defend their specific franchise company, or do they all operate the same?

  Thank you for any insights you can share for those considering a franchise.

• Hello Ang

  There is so many lawsuits and complaints against coverall and other cleaning franchisors all over the country. I suggest that you don’t buy a cleaning franchise with anybody. I have talked to people who bought from different cleaning franchisors and I hear the same horror stories from everybody. When I used to go and buy my cleaning supplies at my local janitorial supply store I would always meet people from different cleaning franchisors and it was always the same story on how cleaning franchisors were ripping them off.

  If you look all over the internet you will see so many complaints. Save your money and don’t buy these fake cleaning franchises because after you pay them all that money you still don’t own NOTHING

• I hope this article warns anybody about buying these fake franchises.

  You can read the rest of the article by going to http://www.franchisetimes.com
  here is the link to read the rest of the article.

  http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story_result.php?article=01374

• Ang: Please see the “post” on the other site. It goes for Coverall and all of them in my opinion. You are an investor in their business, you should be treated that way, you should expect to ask plenty of reasonable questions, remember, unlike 1st amendment, you can actually WALK AWAY!!!!!

  That is unless you are like 1st amendment and do the following

  1. Don’t read the FDD, don’t attempt to hire any help, seek and counsel
  2. Turn over 10K to someone that you don’t like, don’t trust, don’t want to work with
  3. Stumble through training, not read the Policy and Procedures
  4. Turn down multiple accounts, accept finally two accounts
  5. Complain about the two accounts you accepted
  6, Not return the customers phone calls
  7. Not return the office’s phone calls
  8. Throw a fit in the regional office, cussing, throwing things, acting like an idiot
  9. Have customer send an email requesting your immediate removal from bldg.
  10. Throw another fit and refuse to give up keys to facilities
  11. Refuse re-training offered
  12. Blame everyone else for having failed in his attempt in the cleaning business.

• 1st amendment: I hope this doesn’t “end” our relationship, but I’ve got some BAD News to tell you. Soon, you are going to be getting a phone call from “Liz and her terribly drunk, suicidal, down right unhappy band of attorneys” they are going to tell you they have petitioned the court and asked to be removed from the remaining “class action” lawsuits pending. This of course, includes yours.

  Now she’s going to tell you that there are other things on her plate and your California based attorney will do a fine job without her. Of course, the next phone call will be from your California based attorney who will “FIGHT the Good FIGHT” but she needs at least 5K a month until this goes to trial and then will need up to 10K a month once its in “process”.

  You of course will call your good friend, buddy, pal, monkey loving SEIU. Who will have changed his number, moved back to MA, thought about going to Mexico to be with the other Americans there.

  Needless to say, you really need for the remaining issues in the “aiwah” case to go 100% your way. Even with that, the rumor on the street is, new Leadership at SEIU can’t afford another Arkansas problem and someone is “sniffing around” about the misuse of UNION DUES.

• If you have been ripped-off by jan-pro or any other fake cleaning franchisor you can file complaints with the following agencies.

  1. Federal Trade comission http://www.Ftc.Gov

  2. Atorney General http://www.justice.gov/ag/

  3. Another goverment agency that goes after Fraud http://www.stopfraud.Gov

  4. There is also ongoing class actions against these cleaning franchisors. If you would like more information on this you can get my contact information by going to complaintsboard.com you will find my number and e-mail adress there

• Here we go again

  This time coverall was sued in Massachusetts for

  1. Breach of contract

  2. Misrepresentation

  3. Missclasified as independent contractors

  4, Underbiding cintracts

  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.

• 1st amendment: Again, ancient history. They aren’t going to settle your case, they didn’t settle the “aiwah” case. “aiwah” is now setting with 200K in judgements against him with a minor part of his case undecided. When he loses that part, Liz will be pulling the plug on your case by asking the judge to remove herself and her TEAM from the case, SEIU is pulling the plug on the money because there are allegations of misuse of UNION DUES for the paying of these class action lawsuits.

  Your day will come, hope you are ready.

  Did you take your wife out for dinner yet?

• This time a number of people came together and stood up against Coverall. Coverall settles out of court for $300,000 Dollars. They still haven’t learned as they keep getting sued.

  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.

• Thank u to All, Im not going in.

• Good choice Loren.

• Pete: Way to go, Almost couldn’t stand myself with the DEEP Thought provoking statements that you just made. Been off the site for nearly six weeks, the amount of effort, thought provoking skills that you and so many of the others has been mind numbing!

  Question: Have you taken your second account away from us DISGUSTING owner/operator based systems yet? Good Hunting.

• The following was a very important case in which this franchisor lost in court and if you can believe they even tried to sue the office of unemployment which coverall also lost.

  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 $17,000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 21,2006.

• You can add Office Pride to you list of rip of scams. My first meeting that I had a lady stood up and said after she told her name, was how do you get out of this business. Everyone in the room look dumb founded, I should have paid more attention. As the months when on I learned that they are in control of all incoming accounts coming off the website, everyone gets a website but their cell phone number is not on the website, they have all the control to change it but dont. At the time of the so called training they only talk about chemicals and customer service. Then they tell you if you dont have the equipment to do any of your customers floor work they will do it for you taking the extra floor work for themselves. They are also an Monolopy when customers call in they take all the big accounts for themselves and divide up the smaller accounts to the francises, if they have had their own employe cleaning it and the customers are unhappy they sell it off to an francises little know to the new francises that the customer is about to cancel and they second they cancel. The franciese has to still pay for the that acccount. OOOOo and lets not forget about collections in training they tell you if a customer cancels owing you money that they will go after them good look when that all lies in the name of Jesus because they are suppose to be a christian outfit.

• Wow !! I was going to make an appointment to come see coverall, but if anyone has the FDD disclosure scanned and is willing to email it to me to save the the agony of reviewing before I go see these folks I would appreciate it…

• Mario:

  The latest Coverall FDD is available on the California Dept. of Corporations website via their Caleasi database. Go here:

  http://134.186.208.228/caleasi/pub/exsearch.htm

  Search “Coverall”

  Click on the 2010 Renewal (Named: 367839 Franchise Renewal COVERALL NORTH AMERICA INC Franchise Application 04/06/2010 )

  The FDD and all attachments, exhibits, etc. are there.

  Please let us know how your meeting goes, your impressions, etc.

• thanks for the heads up on the FDD !!

  Also, I’ve been reading up on a company called Stratus Building Solutions.
  I checked their website http://www.stratusclean.com , they have some great information on their website.

  I went to a presentation with their Sacramento California office and they are TOTALLY different from 3 other janitorial franchise companies I’ve met with so far.

  They actually took the the time to answer ANY questions I had on their FDD, and allowed me to come to one training class to meet other franchisees to ask more questions.

  I just really wished they covered Fresno which is where I live, they go as far as Madera so it wont work for me.

• Hello after thinking that the salesman of the tax exemption company STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS, I almost realized immediate form that had put to me in a company that did not fulfill and so it promised from the beginning, that until the territory director with you glimpsed which me first you see the 3 months it was dismissed, since it buys a tax exemption of $10.000,00 dollars with an enlistment of $6.000,00 to have income of $2.000,00 dollars per month and in but of 8 months never me to they completed my package of income, and every 2 months invent reclamations supposed on the part of the clients clearing me the account to occur it to another new idiot.

• Any complaints or law suites out there against Coverall Cleaning concept of western Michigan?

• To mario rene, do not buy a franchise with stratus. Yesterday May 10, 2011 they were exposed on Television on Telemundo for ripping of alot of people. Over 20 people were picketing infront of there offices. You might be able to find the video on the Telemundo website.

• 1st Amendment, wow thanks for the heads up on the news that exposed on Television on Telemundo for ripping of alot of people.

  do you have the website link for the telemundo video cause I cant find it?

• Mario here is the link. I like what the guy said on the video. He compared these fake cleaning franchises to a “Cave of Rats”

  http://www.telemundo52.com/video/27856290/index.html

• Hey 1st amedment you may want to dig into these lawsuits a little further like the MA case it looks to me like the franchisees that are suing also backdoored Coverall took the accounts on the side then went back to Coverall asking for the dollars to be put back on their books……..so who’s the crooks here sounds more like the Unions pushing to get non unions out of the area and they found the perfect morons to furhter their cause

• Families and people invest there hard earned money. They invest Thousands of Dollars. Then what happens? Cleaning franchisors rip them off. Even the x coverall president said that they are ripping off people! This was a statement from the x coverall President. What more proof do you need. People pay Thousands of Dollars and then these so called cleaning franchisors take there accounts away and resale them to new incoming people or should I say steal. If you pay Thousands of Dollars to coverall and then they take your accounts away then did you ever own anything ? Sounds like Fraud to me, or like the Judge in the MA coverall case said a Modified Ponzi Scheme. What about underbid accounts were people work for less than minimum wage? This is also unfair competition because your Mom and Pop businesses cant compete with coverall when they pay there cleaners less than minimum wage. So what happened in the MA case with coverall. People got ripped off, the x coverall president blew the whistle and the Judge compared coverall to a modified Pozi Scheme. A few years ago the courts also declared that people that buy a franchise with coverall in reality are not franchisees but just workers because of the way they are treated. Just look at the Rhina Alveraga case.

• thanks i was just laid off and was thinking of taking some of my retirement money and investing in this company are there any real opportunities out here to start your own business to make real money

• Coverall lost the battle….I think the days of franchising in the janitorial field are about over. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/09/01/coverall_workers_entitled_to_recover_franchise_fees/

• Coverall LOST ! Franchisor Hit HARD !

  Cleaners WIN !

  Franchisor Hit HARD For Pretending Employess Are Franchisees.

  Here is the link to the article article

  http://www.bluemaumau.org/10644/fran…re_franchisees

• Here is the right link to the Coverall decision and a few other articles that came out that day on that decision.

  http://www.bluemaumau.org/10644/franchisor_hit_hard_pretending_employees_are_franchisees

  http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/08/31/sjc-employers-not-workers-must-pay.html

  http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-01/business/30102317_1_coverall-north-america-franchise-fees-commercial-cleaning-industry

• Coverall has now stopped selling there fake franchises in …

  “High Stakes”. That is the latest and most recent article that just came out on Franchisetimes.com

  Here is the link to the article. I like what it says at the end.

  http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story_result.php?article=02283

• Coverall has stopped selling fake franchises only in Mass. Elsewhere, the lucrative janitorial franchise scam continues:

  “Coverall has stopped selling franchises in Massachusetts and is treating its 250 franchisees there like employees, covering their insurance costs and paying them regular salaries.

  Vlaming said Coverall’s local business had suffered “a little bit of a fallout” after publicity from the 2010 and recent Supreme Judicial Court decisions. “We are still selling franchises in other states,” she said.

  However, it’s business as usual for the other five commercial cleaning franchise systems in Massachusetts….”

• On August 31, six of the high court’s seven justices ruled companies found guilty of misusing the franchise model to “sell low-paying jobs” in Massachusetts will be required to pay back all the franchise fees, royalties and insurance premiums they had collected from their misclassified employees.

  In the meantime, Coverall has stopped selling franchises in Massachusetts and is treating its 250 franchisees there like employees, covering their insurance costs and paying them regular salaries.

  A master franchisor from one of the other systems, who asked not to be named “because it would put a target on my back,” said, “We are treading on eggshells. We hear that the lawfirm is backed by organizations and that they are going to keep digging until they destroy us all.”

• They treat the employees and franchise owners like they are nothing but slaves. They have not paid the franchise owners and also have on several dates the checks for the staff on Alabama have bounced.
  They are owned by a master franchise in Grand Rapids and Detroit MI.
  Beware if you even thinking of working for or with this company.

• Here is a list of 25 Lawsuits against coverall

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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. Coverall filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and for Attorney Fees and Costs on April 23, 2007, relying upon the mandatory mediation and arbitration provisions of the Janitorial Franchise Agreement. Coverall prevailed on its motion. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 $17,000. The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 21,2006.

  8. “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.

  9. 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.

  10. Gloter Intertechnologies. Inc. v. Coverall North America. Inc.. (District Court of Nassau County Second District, Hempstead Part, Commercial Claims Division Case No. CC 00421/04), filed June 30, 2004. Plaintiff, a Coverall franchisee, alleged breach of contract and misrepresentations. Mediation was held on September 9, 2004, and the case was settled. Coverall agreed to provide the Plaintiff with retraining, proof of Coverall”s insurance coverage, and $500 worth of business. The case was dismissed on January 14, 2005 for plaintiff s failure to prosecute.

  11. Fartun Farah v. Coverall North America. Inc., (Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations Case No. 03CVH-08-8982), filed August 15, 2003. Plaintiff, a Coverall franchisee, variously claimed that Coverall breached the Janitorial Franchise Agreement by failing to provide adequate training or sufficient customer accounts to service and that Coverall used deceptive practices. Plaintiff also alleged that Coverall violated Chapter 1334 of the Ohio Revised Code claiming that Coverall failed to provide Plaintiff with notice of cancellation. Plaintiff sought compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000.00 and punitive damages of $25,000.00, plus attorney”s fees and costs. The case was settled for $7,000, and the case dismissed with prejudice on November 19, 2004.

  12. Ralph Drinkwater v. Coverall North America. Inc.. (District Court Department Maiden Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts Case No. 04-1048), filed August 10, 2004. Plaintiff, a Coverall franchisee, alleged Coverall breached the Janitorial Franchise Agreement and that Coverall used deceptive practices. Plaintiff also alleged that Coverall violated Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection, by failing to provide sufficient customer accounts. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $38,000. The case was settled for $3,575.00, and the case was dismissed on October 26, 2004.

  13. Smajil Chaiic v. Coverall North America. Inc.. (Associate Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, Case NO. 04AC-20843), filed August 16, 2004. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and fraud claiming that he purchased a franchise and was not provided with the appropriate amount of business. Plaintiff claimed damages in the amount of $8,500.00, plus attorney”s fees. Coverall denied all claims, and the case was settled for $6,000.00. On September 22, 2004 the case was dismissed with prejudice.

  14. William Foushee. et al. v. Coverall North America. Inc.. In September 2001, the claimants, present and former janitorial franchisees, filed this Arbitration Complaint with the American Arbitration Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleging that we failed to provide them with cleaning accounts; took cleaning accounts from them without cause; failed to provide them with training; and otherwise breached their franchise agreements. They sought rescission and damages and stated that their collective damages exceeded $500,000, plus attorney”s fees. Three arbitrators were appointed and the arbitration was held in May 2003. Prior to the hearing, the claim of claimant Dzmaili was dismissed, and three other claims were settled by Coverall agreeing, while denying liability, to pay nominal amounts in exchange for dismissals of these claims (Foushee – $8,500.00; Johnson – $4,500.00; Spikes – $4,500.00). The Arbitrators dismissed the claims of Lewis and Gumustus. Ayala”s claim, which was not heard at the Arbitration, was settled for $13,000.00. All claims have been resolved, and the Arbitration matter was closed on May 24, 2004.

  15. Mario Hercules, et al.. v. Coverall North America. Inc.. et al.. (Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, Central District, Case No. BC 272959), filed April 29, 2002.�� Plaintiffs, nine current and former franchisees, variously claimed that Coverall through its agents utilized high-pressure sales techniques, made earnings claims, provided plaintiffs with customer accounts that were underbid and unprofitable, and took customer accounts away from plaintiffs without cause for the purpose of selling the customer accounts to other franchisees. On January 27, 2003, Coverall filed its Answer and Cross Complaint denying all allegations of wrong doing. In August 2002 and on January 10, 2003, the court dismissed various claims made by the plaintiffs. The parties agreed to mediate the dispute and on July 21, 2003 agreed to settle all claims for a payment of $450,000.

  16. Maria Valencia, et al v. Coverall North America. Inc.. et al.fSuperior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, Central District, Case No.BC279578), filed August 13, 2002. Plaintiffs, four former Coverall franchisees, variously claimed that Coverall through its agent utilized high-pressure sales techniques, made earnings claims, provided plaintiff with customer accounts that were underbid and unprofitable, and took customer accounts away from plaintiffs without cause for the purpose of selling these accounts to other franchisees. We denied all claims. On December 20,2002, the case was settled with all defendants for the combined total amount of $45,000.00.

  17. Vince Lynn. Milton Tyrone Watson, Sr. and Milton Tyrone Watson, Jr. vs. Coverall North America. Inc.. (District Court of Harris County, Texas, Case Number 200041147), filed August 2000. Plaintiffs Vince Lynn, Milton Tyrone Watson, Sr. and Milton Tyrone Watson, Jr., were Coverall franchisees in the Houston, Texas area. Plaintiffs alleged that we made false representations and warranties and asserted claims against us for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, detrimental reliance, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought a refund of their initial franchise fees, forgiveness of their notes, unspecified economic damages, pre and post judgment interest, exemplary damages, court costs, attorney”s fees, and unspecified damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On April 30, 2001, a settlement was entered into by which we paid the plaintiffs a total of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00), plaintiffs released all claims against us, and the case was dismissed “with prejudice.”

  18. Augustine Perez v. Coverall North America. Inc.. (Superior Court Civil Action No. 98-6549A, Commonwealth of Massachusetts), filed December 23, 1998, Plaintiff was a franchisee of MM&J Corporation, the Coverall Service Franchise for the Boston area until July 1995, when we reacquired certain assets of MM&J. In 1997, in a lawsuit which plaintiff filed against MM&J (in which we were not named as a party), plaintiff obtained a default judgment against MM&J in the amount of $58,904.80. In January 1999, we were served with this new suit by Mr. Perez, claiming we are the successor and/or “alter ego” of MM&J and are thus liable on the above judgment. On October 2, 2000, a settlement agreement was entered into by which Coverall, without admitting any wrongdoing, paid plaintiff $55,000. The matter was then dismissed with prejudice.

  19. Ismarv Diaz v. Coverall North America. Inc.. (Circuit Court for Hillsborough County Florida, General Civil Division, Case No. 97 06827), filed October 1, 1997. Plaintiff, a former Coverall franchisee, claimed that Coverall did not timely provide him with business accounts after relocating his franchise from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to the Tampa, Florida area; that we attempted to terminate his franchise without cause; and that we misled him by failing to reveal facts regarding the franchise. He asked that we pay him unspecified compensatory, punitive and treble damages. We denied any and all wrongdoing and stated that plaintiffs franchise had been terminated for cause. On May 3, 1999, this case was settled without any admission of wrongdoing by us. Accordingly, we paid plaintiff $7,000, and he released all claims against Coverall, and dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice.

  20. Karen and Steven St. Clair, et al. v. Coverall North America. Inc.. d.b.a. Coverall of San Diego. Inc.. (Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 720129), filed April 27, 1998. Plaintiffs, Coverall janitorial franchisees, claimed that Coverall unjustifiably terminated certain of their cleaning accounts and failed to replace them, and that Coverall failed to provide certain additional business accounts purchased by them. This conduct, they claimed, was a breach of the Franchise Agreement; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty; intentional interference with economic relations; and unfair business practices. Coverall denied all allegations of wrong doing. On March 3, 1999, a settlement was reached by which Coverall paid plaintiffs $7,500 in exchange for the dismissal of this lawsuit, “with prejudice,” and plaintiffs” Coverall Janitorial Franchise Agreement was mutually terminated.

  21. Richard and Jeanie Ko v. Coverall North America. Inc.. et al.. (Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 795516), filed June 12, 1998. Plaintiffs, Richard Ko, a former Coverall franchisee, and his wife, claimed that because an account, which they were servicing, was terminated by the customer, Coverall was in breach of the Franchise Agreement. The plaintiffs also claimed this action by Coverall constituted fraud and deceit and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Their complaint, also named as co-defendants Alex Roudi, former Chief Executive Officer of Coverall; Bill Burch, former Coverall Vice President and Divisional Director; and former Coverall Regional Director,

  Jason Rasmussen. Plaintiffs asked for “an order of restitution in the amount of $157,000,” plus an order of rescission of their Franchise Agreement, plus unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorney”s fees. We denied all liability and filed a crossclaim against plaintiff for the balance of the amounts still owing by them to us. On August 6, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement agreement by which we, without any admission of wrongdoing, paid plaintiffs $62,000, and the parties dismissed their claims against each other, with prejudice.

  22. Coverall North America. Inc. v. Warion. Inc. and Murray Arthur: and Coverall North America. Inc. v. Warion. Inc.. Murray Arthur andMichael Warden. (Before the American Arbitration Association, Chicago, Illinois, Case No. 51T1140001397) (consolidated); filed January 10, 1997. Coverall filed this arbitration proceeding against defendants, Warjon, Inc. (“Warjon”), our Coverall Service Franchisee, and Murray Arthur and Michael Warden, Warjon”s principal shareholders seeking a declaration that we did not, as respondents had accused, violate federal and state disclosure laws and guidelines by misstating and/or fraudulently failing to state facts regarding an alleged predecessor company of ours; an alleged affiliate company of ours; an alleged act or acts by us jeopardizing the Coverall service mark; and an alleged failure by us to disclose certain litigation regarding Coverall”s mark. Respondents denied that they were entitled to the relief sought, and filed counterclaims against us claiming we breached their Service Franchise Agreement, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and California, Florida, and North Carolina law, and that we committed fraud, misrepresentation and a breach of fiduciary duty. Respondents sought rescission of their Service Franchise Agreements, repayment of all money paid by them to Coverall, and unspecified damages. We denied the allegations in the counterclaim. On August 24, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement agreement by which Coverall, without any admission of wrongdoing, paid respondents $200,000 as a partial reimbursement of their attorneys” fees, and the claimant and the respondents dismissed their claims, with prejudice.

  23. Ted Freeman v. Coverall North America d.b.a. Coverall of Los Angeles. Inc.. (Superior Court for Orange County, California, Case No. 787765), filed December 8, 1997. Plaintiff, a Coverall franchisee, claimed we breached his Franchise Agreement by failing to provide him with business accounts in a timely manner, and that we fraudulently misrepresented that we had an adequate number of accounts to timely provide him with the volume of business agreed to in his Franchise Agreement. Plaintiff asked for $40,200 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorney fees. We denied breaching the Franchise Agreement or that we otherwise acted wrongfully, and filed a cross claim against the plaintiff for the principal balance of a promissory note from plaintiff to Coverall, then in default. On April 9, 1998, a settlement agreement was entered into between the parties by which Coverall paid plaintiff $12,000, and both parties dismissed their claims, with prejudice.

  24. Coverall North America. Inc. v. Thelen Commercial Cleaning Corp. and William E. Thelen. (American Arbitration Association, Seattle, Washington, Case No. 75 Y 114 00037 97), filed January 10, 1997. We initiated this declaratory judgment action. Respondents filed counterclaims alleging breach of the Service Franchise Agreement, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Washington law, and misrepresentation seeking either damages or rescission. On February 10, 1998, the arbitrators ruled. It was declared that while our disclosure regarding a predecessor company failed to satisfy technical disclosure requirements it was not a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, and did not damage the Respondent. The arbitrators ruled in our favor on the Respondents” Washington Consumer Protection Act and misrepresentation claims. They further found that loans made by then CEO, Alex Roudi, to his brother constituted breach of contract and should have been disclosed; but ruled that rescission or termination of the Service Franchise Agreement was not warranted. The arbitrators further ruled that our failure to disclose certain matters justified Respondents” suspension of franchise sales, and assessed damages against us in the amount of $280,000. We were also enjoined from providing information, assistance, guarantees, financial support, loans, or referrals of business, customers or accounts to the company owned by Alex Roudi”s brother, or its officers, directors, shareholders, or affiliated companies. We were also ordered to pay Respondents” reasonable attorneys” fees in the amount of $150,000, plus a portion of costs. The matter was dismissed in July 1998.

  25. Coverall North America. Inc. v. Kevin Foster, et al.. (District Court for Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District, Case No. 96-45847), filed September 10, 1996. We filed this action against defendant Kevin Foster, a Coverall janitorial franchisee, and others, based on breach of contract, fraud, and civil conspiracy, claiming that although defendant Foster agreed in his Coverall Janitorial Franchise Agreement not to engage in the janitorial business during the term of his franchise (other than as a Coverall franchisee), he, with the aid and assistance of defendant Gwendolyn Hodge, operated a non-Coverall janitorial business concurrently with his Coverall business. We asked that the defendants be enjoined from so competing and using our confidential and proprietary information in their non-Coverall business and that they account for profits earned as a result of so competing; and that we be awarded damages and attorneys” fees. Defendant Foster filed a counterclaim against us, alleging we did not furnish him the amount of business called for in his Franchise Agreement, and also claimed that we failed to comply with unspecified “statutory required disclosures” when we sold him his Franchise, and that the sale was in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On April 23, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement by which Coverall without any admission of wrongdoing, paid defendant $100,000. The claim and counterclaim were thereafter dismissed, with prejudice.

• National Employment June 17, 2010
  Law Project

  Testimony of
  Catherine K. Ruckelshaus

  National Employment Law Project

  Hearing Before the United States Congress
  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

  Leveling the Playing Field: Protecting Workers and
  Businesses affected by Misclassification

  Senator Harkin and members of the Committee: thank you for this opportunity to testify
  today on the important subject of independent contractor misclassification and its impacts
  on workers and their families, law abiding employers, and our economy.

  Today, I will describe independent contractor misclassification and its impacts on
  workers, on state and federal government coffers, and on law-abiding employers. I will
  highlight the heightened activity on this important issue in the states, following the state
  studies showing staggering public losses due to the practice. I will conclude with
  comments on the introduced federal Employee Misclassification Protection Act (EMPA),
  and suggest some further ideas for policy reforms to contend with this unchecked and growing practice.

  Janitors from Central and South America and Korea were recruited by a large
  building services cleaning company, Coverall, Inc., to clean office buildings in
  MA and other states. The janitors were “sold” franchise agreements for tens of
  thousands of dollars, permitting them to clean certain offices assigned by
  Coverall. The janitors were told where to clean, what materials to use, and were
  not permitted to set their own prices for the cleaning services. When one janitor
  quit when she couldn’t make ends meet, she applied for unemployment benefits in
  MA and was told she was an “independent contractor” and not eligible. She
  challenged that decision and Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled in her
  favor. NELP wrote an amicus brief in Coverall and provided assistance.

  You can read the whole article at this site.
  http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ruckelshaus.pdf

• Here is a link and article to recent developements in the coverall case.

  http://llrlaw.com/pdfs/cleaning_franchise_02_14_2012.pdf

  Judge certifies class of cleaning workers misclassified as ‘franchisees’

  Sheri Qualters
  The National Law Journal 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.

• Well I was a coverall franchisee for 6 years in Massachusetts, most of the complaints I see around I lived through that. I joined in the Class Action Suit and Im looking forward to MR Youngs ruling on March 12. It’s been a long time coming and I hope that after this, all these franchisors review their business practices and think about all these people that they are screwing. 1 for the little people.

  Hey 1st amendment keep up the good work, Where is this Jerry guy at?

• http://www.llrlaw.com/pdfs/cleaning_franchise_02_29_2012.pdf

  Latest Develpments Monday is the BIG Day….

• Ex-Coverall employee could you please contact me you can find my phone number in complaintsboard. There is something that I want to organise. Maybe you can help.

  Take care.

• The Judge has Ruled.

  Justice at Last !

  Coverall to Pay Triple Damages !

  People don’t ever give up. If you get ripped-off stand up and fight to get Justice.

  Here is part of the article. You can read the rest by going to the link.

  http://www.bluemaumau.org/11385/coverall_pay_triple_damages

  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.

• Ouch! That’s hurts. Hopefully we get our money fast. It’s been a long time coming.

• It looks like the people who bought into the coverall Ponzi Scheme will soon get Justice.

  Here is part of the article. To read the whole article you can go to the link bellow.

  ‘The Sky is Not Falling’
  Although ruling in Coverall case could cause sweeping changes

  By Julie Bennett
  As published in: Franchise Times – May 2012

  Coverall’s five-year legal battle over whether its Massachusetts franchisees are really company employees is not over, but the lawsuit’s growing success is generating alarm within the franchise community. In March, District Court Judge William Young ruled again in the franchisees’ favor, stating that a group of at least 115 franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors and are eligible for the benefits employees would have earned during their tenure with Coverall, including back wages and overtime pay.

  He ordered Coverall to refund the monies the franchisees had spent on franchise fees, cleaning contracts and insurance, and said he would impose triple damages on the cleaning company back to 2006. “We’re talking tens of thousands of dollars for most of the workers,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston.

  Judge Young was expected to rule on the total amount of damages in mid-April. And as soon as that happens, lead defense attorney Norman Leon, a partner in DLA Piper’s Chicago office, said that Coverall would file another appeal. In order to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, to review Judge Young’s most recent ruling, Coverall will have to post a bond based on the total damage amount, Leon said.

  http://franchisetimes.com/content/st…?article=02367

• Here is the right link to the article

  http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story.php?article=02367

• Coverall hit with a $3 million bill to start off. http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2012/05/11/are-some-franchisees-really-employees/

  Calculation are done. They are going to appeal but had to put down a 3 million bond to do so.

• Wow! I was actually supposed to go to a presentation on Tuesday . By all accounts, it looks great. They have an A+ rating with BBB, their customer service “woos” you in, and their website is intriguing.

  Thanks to my husband(a wise man who has been burnt in the pat) said , “sounds good but do your research”

  A quick google search landed me here and I have an eye full of information which has helped me see the light.

  SO I THANK YOU FOR THIS. I PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT HAVE THE CHANCE TO SEE THIS BEFORE GIVING THESE SCAM ARTISTS THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY!

  Thank you all for taking the time to help others. It really saves lives. In this economy, we surely can’t afford to loser a investment to such a scam. It would have been financially devistating for us!

• To A Very Greatful Woman:

  I am so glad that you did your homework and made an informed (and wise) decision.

  Thanks to all of you who contribute to this site, and who share the benefit of your experience and keep potential victims from falling into these traps. Keep spreading the word.

  ADMIN

• Thank you to ADMIN for taking the time to keep this site current and for being an advocate for franchisees. I review this site daily and recommend to anyone considering the purchase of a franchise that they check this site to see if any negative reviews are posted by franchisees. A Very Grateful Woman is not the first potential franchisee who has posted that they decided not to purchase a franchise because of the information posted on this site. Any business venture is risky. Potential franchisees are excited by the prospect of controlling their own destiny and want to believe and trust the franchisor. However, one only needs to review the thousands of posts on this site to see how important it is to do a thorough investigation before signing the franchise agreement. Failing to conduct adequate due diligence can result in dire consequences. I can’t imagine a worse feeling than investing your life savings into a venture only to discover that the franchisor was less than honest. Unfortunately, most of my clients had that experience. Question everything and if your gut tells you something isn’t right, be prepared to walk away.

• Hi all,
  I recently bought a franchise with coverall but I’m not happy at all they are a scam, after a year with them they took 2 accounts from me supposedly for poor service. This is a total scam. I will like to sue them but I do not see any legal action against them here in NYC/NJ office . If someone can advise of Any lawyer I could talk to about this topic. Thanks