Jack & Joe’s Franchising v. EB Window Cleaning LLC

Background

Plaintiff Jack & Joe's Franchising, Inc. ("JJFI"), operating under the registered trademark "Squeegee Squad®," is a franchisor of window cleaning and building maintenance services. In October 2023, JJFI entered into a Franchise Agreement with defendant Eric Bernadin, who individually operated EB Window Cleaning LLC, a Florida limited liability company. Bernadin also signed a Personal Guaranty binding him personally to the Agreement's terms.

The Agreement authorized Bernadin to use the Squeegee Squad system, trade name, and trademarks for fifteen years, but only within his assigned territory (Northeast Miami-Dade County, Florida) and only while he complied with the Agreement. The Agreement also gave JJFI the right to terminate immediately — without any opportunity to cure — if a franchisee failed to comply with an audit request. Upon termination, all rights to use Squeegee Squad's marks reverted to JJFI, and the franchisee became subject to post-termination obligations including a 24-month noncompete clause restricting competition within the franchised territory, territories of other Squeegee Squad franchisees, and within 10 miles of those areas. The Agreement stated that noncompliance could cause "irreparable damage" to JJFI.

In March 2025, after learning Bernadin was performing jobs outside his territory without reporting or sharing revenues, Squeegee Squad issued an audit letter. Bernadin's response was incomplete. A second audit notice was sent April 10, 2025. After Bernadin again failed to comply, Squeegee Squad terminated the Agreement on June 13, 2025.

Squeegee Squad then alleged numerous post-termination violations: Bernadin refused to transfer franchised phone numbers and continued using them with Squeegee Squad's marks; he used a vehicle bearing Squeegee Squad's marks; he solicited and diverted former customers while spreading misleading information; he forwarded emails from his Squeegee Squad account to a private email; and he allegedly coordinated a campaign of false negative Google reviews posted by personal associates who had never used Squeegee Squad's services. A cease-and-desist letter was sent June 29, 2025.

Squeegee Squad filed suit on July 3, 2025, asserting trademark infringement, breach of the franchise agreement (including the noncompete clause), unfair competition, and defamation. It moved for a preliminary injunction on July 9, 2025, and for expedited discovery on July 15, 2025. Bernadin, proceeding pro se (without an attorney), did not respond to the complaint or either motion.

The court held a status conference on August 14, 2025, and referred the matter to a settlement program because Bernadin was unrepresented. A settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins on October 28, 2025 was unsuccessful. On November 4, 2025, Bernadin filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. He was also ordered to file an answer and a response to the preliminary injunction motion by December 4, 2025, which he failed to do. EB Window Cleaning LLC, as a corporate entity, was required to obtain counsel but failed to do so, resulting in the Clerk of Court entering a default against it on December 10, 2025 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Bernadin argued that the franchise agreement's arbitration clause required all disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 2, and that the case should be stayed pending arbitration.

The court applied a two-part test: (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) whether it covers the dispute at issue. See Triplet v. Menard, Inc., 42 F.4th 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2022). Because Squeegee Squad did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, the court focused only on scope.

The arbitration clause (Article 21.2) broadly required arbitration of "all disputes and controversies" arising from the Agreement, but expressly made this subject to exceptions "as provided in Article 21.5." Article 21.5 reserved JJFI's right to seek a court injunction in the event of a franchisee's breach, and to commence a civil action to compel compliance with trademark standards. Because Squeegee Squad's lawsuit alleged trademark infringement and sought an injunction to stop breaches — precisely the conduct covered by Article 21.5's exception — the court found the claims fell outside the arbitration obligation. The court denied Bernadin's Motion to Compel Arbitration on the merits, without reaching Squeegee Squad's procedural objections.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a court order requiring a party to stop (or sometimes perform) specified conduct while a case is pending, before a final judgment. Courts in the Eighth Circuit assess four factors established in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981): (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (3) balance of harms between the parties; and (4) the public interest. The likelihood-of-success factor is considered the most important. An evidentiary hearing was not held because Defendants had notice and opportunity to respond but did not, and there was no material factual dispute to resolve.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Irreparable Harm

The court found irreparable harm (harm that money damages cannot adequately remedy) based on: (1) trademark infringement, which courts have held constitutes irreparable harm per se; (2) reputational damage from the false reviews, which cannot be fully compensated by later money damages; and (3) a list of unquantifiable harms described by Squeegee Squad, including loss of trademark goodwill, loss of control over confidential information, customer diversion, obstruction of re-franchising, and the systemic risk that other franchisees might emulate Bernadin's conduct.

Balance of Harms and Public Interest

The court identified no harm to Defendants from granting the injunction — Defendants identified none either. The public interest weighed in Squeegee Squad's favor because the public interest supports protecting consumers from trademark confusion and enforcing valid contractual noncompete provisions. Because no harm to Defendants was identified and they failed to respond as ordered, the court also waived the bond requirement that Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would otherwise require.

Rulings

All four Dataphase factors favored granting the preliminary injunction. The court:

1. Granted Squeegee Squad's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 8). Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from: (a) violating the post-termination noncompete provision; (b) any acts of defamation, including publishing reviews of Squeegee Squad or its franchisees or affiliates; and (c) any unauthorized use of Squeegee Squad's protected trademarks. Defendants must also fulfill their post-termination obligations under the Agreement.

2. Denied as moot Squeegee Squad's Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 14), because the preliminary injunction was decided without a hearing.

3. Denied Eric Bernadin's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 39).