A major fast-food chain’s efforts to streamline its operations have taken a new turn. This time, into the courtroom.
As the company works through a broader plan to close underperforming locations, a dispute with one of its largest franchise operators is intensifying, raising questions about who ultimately controls whether restaurants stay open or shut down.
At the center of the conflict is Jack in the Box, which is now seeking to halt a wave of closures it says a franchisee has no right to carry out.
Jack in the Box (JACK) has filed for a restraining order in Washington state court to block franchisee AJP Enterprises from closing 38 restaurants across the Seattle metro area.
The legal action follows the company’s termination of AJP Enterprises in March over $1.4 million in unpaid marketing fees.
According to court filings, the franchisee was given 30 days to fix the default, but failed to do so. Despite that notice, AJP Enterprises informed the fast-food chain of its intention to begin closing the remaining locations, with shutdowns expected by April 22 unless the default notice is withdrawn, according to Restaurant Business Online.
Jack in the Box argues the franchisee has “no contractual right” to close the restaurants and is seeking immediate court intervention. The company maintains that unauthorized closures could harm the brand equity, disrupt local markets, and create broader operational risks.
According to franchise law experts at Franzy, such agreements typically limit a franchisee’s ability to unilaterally shut down locations, particularly when financial obligations remain unresolved.
The current legal action is the latest development in a yearslong conflict between the company and franchise operator Steve Wazny, who owns AJP Enterprises and NHG Enterprises.
In 2024, the entities filed a lawsuit seeking to block the termination of 39 Seattle-area restaurants. Wazny alleged that Jack in the Box attempted to use the closure of eight underperforming locations as justification for terminating the remaining stores and forcing a sale.
While the fast-food chain initially argued those closures were carried out without its approval, both sides ultimately reached a temporary agreement under which Jack in the Box would not terminate the remaining locations, and the franchisee would continue operating them in compliance with franchise obligations.
However, that agreement began to unravel when AJP Enterprises stopped paying required marketing fees on the remaining units, triggering the current default and legal escalation.
