MAC TOOLS Lawsuit Documents: DEE C. WALTER v. MAC TOOLS, INC.

Complaint & Jury Demand in the lawsuit DEE C. WALTER v. MAC TOOLS, INC., a Division of STANLEY : BLACK & DECKER, INC., Case 3:11-cv-01997, filed December 23, 2011 in Connecticut District Court, is posted in its entirety, including exhibits, below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

__________________________________________

DEE C. WALTER

Plaintiff,

v.

MAC TOOLS, INC., a Division of STANLEY : BLACK & DECKER, INC.,

Defendant

__________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Dee C. Walter (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Marks & Klein, LLP, for his Complaint as against Defendant Mac Tools, Inc., (“Mac” or “Mac Tools”), a division of Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., (“Stanley Black & Decker”) (collectively “Defendant”), allege and aver as follows:
NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This lawsuit arises from Defendant‟s willful failure to properly compensate Plaintiff, who is a former Mac Tools distributor, for certain warranty and repair work that Defendant requires all Mac Tools distributors to perform, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. (“FLSA”).

2. While Defendants have historically purported to sell “distributorships”, not franchises, Plaintiff did indeed purchase a franchise as defined by state and federal law.

3. Defendants have violated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rule 436, which requires a franchisor, such as Defendant, to provide a prospective investor/franchisee with 23

2. Items of information that is critically necessary for Plaintiff, or other potential franchisees, to fully evaluate the nature of the business investment being contemplated.

4. With regard to state-specific laws, Defendant violated Connecticut law, particularly the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), by, among other things, failing to provide Plaintiff the necessary Uniform Franchise Offering Circular (“UFOC”), before Plaintiff purchased his Mac Tool Distributorship, which in reality is a franchise.

Furthermore, since Plaintiff purchased a Mac Tools franchise, as opposed to a distributorship, Defendants also violated the Minnesota Franchise Act, by improperly terminating Plaintiff‟s franchise and not allowing him the necessary time to cure any alleged “defaults” Defendants allege Plaintiff had pursuant to his franchise agreement with Defendant.

5. As a result of Defendants‟ foregoing violations of state and federal law, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, statutory, and treble damages, as well as attorneys‟ fees and costs from Defendant.

Complaint & Jury Demand [pdf format]:
DEE C. WALTER v. MAC TOOLS, INC., Complaint

Exhibits:
DEE C. WALTER v. MAC TOOLS, INC., Complaint Exhibits

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MAC TOOLS FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY?  WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

To contact the author or site admin, email UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com.

More on MAC TOOLS:

MAC TOOLS Lawsuit Alleges Fraud, Labor Violations  December 24, 2011

Is MAC TOOLS Stanley Black & Decker Selling Illegal Franchises?  December 23, 2011

MAC TOOLS Guilty of Franchise Fraud?  November 7, 2011