Signal 88 Security — now operating as “Signal” — has been a party to a cluster of lawsuits over the past decade, most involving former franchisees accused of competing against the brand, poaching clients, or misusing proprietary information, along with one employment retaliation case that reached the Nebraska Supreme Court. The outcomes are mixed: courts have denied or narrowed some of the company’s injunction requests, a jury sided with Signal 88 in the employment case, and several franchise disputes remain active in federal court as of 2026.
The Omaha-based franchisor sells mobile patrol and monitoring franchises through local owner-operators, and its agreements require personal guarantees from franchise principals along with a security interest in business assets.11851 Franchise. Franchise Deep Dive: Signal Security Franchise Costs, Fees, Profit, and Data Those contractual hooks shape most of the litigation that follows. Although the company rebranded in 2022, its legal entity remains Signal 88, LLC, and court filings continue to use that name.2Franchise Direct. Signal 88 Security
Signal 88 v. Masterson
The most detailed franchise dispute in current court records is Signal 88, LLC v. Masterson, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Signal 88 sued former franchisee Sean Masterson and three entities he controlled — Northern Sky, LLC; Washington Security Services Inc.; and Eyey LLC — after the collapse of what the company called Franchise 366.3Buchalter. Signal 88 LLC v. Masterson: Franchisee Engages in Shell Game Asset Pledging and Customer Poaching Before Becoming Judgment Proof
According to Signal 88, Masterson ran a deliberate “exit strategy,” using a web of entities to mislead lenders and the franchisor about the franchise’s profitability and pledging the same business assets as collateral for multiple loans. The company further alleged that he diverted confidential data and trade secrets to Eyey LLC, a competing security company he controlled, and used that information to solicit at least 60 Signal 88 customers. Signal 88 characterized the arrangement as an attempt to collapse the franchise entities, shield assets, and continue operating under a new brand.3Buchalter. Signal 88 LLC v. Masterson: Franchisee Engages in Shell Game Asset Pledging and Customer Poaching Before Becoming Judgment Proof
The claims include breach of contract, breach of personal guarantees, tortious interference, trade secret misappropriation, and unjust enrichment. A related case Masterson had filed in King County Superior Court was dismissed in favor of mandatory mediation, which failed and led to the federal action.3Buchalter. Signal 88 LLC v. Masterson: Franchisee Engages in Shell Game Asset Pledging and Customer Poaching Before Becoming Judgment Proof
On August 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan denied Masterson’s motion for court-appointed counsel. The court found he was not indigent, pointing to roughly $9,500 in monthly take-home pay and a $100,000 retirement account, even though he claimed $1.4 million in liabilities tied to his entities and estimated defense costs between $350,000 and $500,000. The court also noted he had been competently filing his own motions. Separately, it ruled that his corporate entities cannot represent themselves in federal court and must retain licensed attorneys.3Buchalter. Signal 88 LLC v. Masterson: Franchisee Engages in Shell Game Asset Pledging and Customer Poaching Before Becoming Judgment Proof The case remains ongoing.
Colorado Security Consultants v. Signal 88
In September 2016, Colorado Security Consultants (CSC), along with Timothy Siman and Jared Iungerich, sued Signal 88 Franchise Group in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, alleging the franchisor breached their agreement regarding a right of first refusal for new territory. Signal 88 countersued for breach of contract and tortious interference.4UniCourt. Colorado Security Consultants LLC et al v. Signal 88 Franchise Group Inc et al
After Signal 88 terminated the franchise effective October 31, 2016, the former franchisees launched a competing business called Guardhail. Signal 88 sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the agreement’s noncompete, which barred former franchisees from selling competing services within 75 miles of their territory for three years. The company said CSC was contacting Signal customers and undercutting it on price; CSC responded that it was not using Signal 88 trademarks, manuals, or confidential information.5vLex. Colo. Sec. Consultants LLC v. Signal 88 Franchise Grp. Inc.
On March 17, 2017, U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard denied Signal 88’s injunction request. The court found that the franchisor had not shown the kind of irreparable harm required for that remedy, reasoning that lost customers and goodwill could be compensated with money damages at trial.5vLex. Colo. Sec. Consultants LLC v. Signal 88 Franchise Grp. Inc. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 31, 2017 under a joint stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs — the kind of resolution that typically indicates a settlement.4UniCourt. Colorado Security Consultants LLC et al v. Signal 88 Franchise Group Inc et al
Signal 88 v. RTC Security
In 2025, Signal 88 sued RTC Security Co. LLC and its sole member, Ward Rowlands, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The dispute grew out of a franchise agreement signed July 21, 2022, under which Rowlands had given personal guarantees.6GovInfo. Signal 88 LLC v. RTC Security Co. LLC
Signal 88 asked for a preliminary injunction on two fronts: to stop Rowlands from continuing to use Signal’s federally registered trademarks, and to keep him away from client locations of another Signal franchisee, Premier Atlantic Security Group, Inc. Court filings describe a September 8, 2025 incident in which Rowlands allegedly followed Premier Atlantic employees in a black SUV during an early-morning patrol on private property, accelerated toward their vehicle, and tried to box them into a dead-end area. The employees called the police, who identified Rowlands as the driver.7Justia. Signal 88 LLC v. RTC Security Co. LLC et al, Filing No. 14
On September 19, 2025, Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. issued a partial preliminary injunction. The court barred Rowlands and RTC from using Signal’s trademarks or any close imitation on uniforms, signs, marketing materials, domain names, and correspondence. It also dissolved an earlier restriction that had kept Rowlands away from Premier Atlantic’s client locations, narrowing the injunction to the trademark issue. Signal 88’s $5,000 bond remains in place.6GovInfo. Signal 88 LLC v. RTC Security Co. LLC
Guardian Angel Private Security v. Signal 88
Not every suit has been filed by Signal 88. In June 2025, Guardian Angel Private Security, Inc. sued Signal 88 Franchise Group in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Signal 88 removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it was assigned to Judge George H. Wu.8PACER Monitor. Guardian Angel Private Security Inc. v. Signal 88 Franchise Group Inc. et al Signal 88 filed counterclaims and third-party claims against Guardian Angel’s principals, Gianna Carrazco-Finch and Harold Finch III.
The matter is classified as a contract and franchise dispute. As of early 2026, the parties were in mediation under Leonard Levy, with a post-mediation status conference scheduled.9U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Guardian Angel Private Security Inc. v. Signal 88 Franchise Group Inc. et al, Calendar Specific claims have not been detailed in available records.8PACER Monitor. Guardian Angel Private Security Inc. v. Signal 88 Franchise Group Inc. et al
Haffke v. Signal 88
The one major case that does not involve a franchisee is Haffke v. Signal 88, LLC, an employment dispute decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2020. Nathan Haffke, Signal 88’s former vice president of franchise development, was terminated in March 2016. He sued on two theories: retaliation for whistleblowing and defamation.10FindLaw. Haffke v. Signal 88 LLC
Haffke alleged he had reported what he believed were violations of federal and state franchise law — specifically, that Signal 88 was sharing profit-and-loss statements with prospective franchisees outside the required Franchise Disclosure Document and expanding territories through newly formed companies without updated disclosures. He also raised concerns about alleged wiretapping and consumer protection violations. His position was that his termination was punishment for those complaints.10FindLaw. Haffke v. Signal 88 LLC
A jury found that Haffke failed to prove retaliation. On July 31, 2020, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the trial court’s jury instructions. Those instructions told jurors that an employee’s good-faith belief that employer conduct was unlawful counts as protected activity, but that the court could not second-guess Signal 88’s business judgment simply because jurors viewed the termination as harsh or unreasonable.11vLex. Haffke v. Signal 88 LLC
On the defamation count, Haffke challenged a statement in Signal 88’s Franchise Disclosure Document describing his termination as being for “poor performance.” The trial court granted Signal 88 a directed verdict because Haffke had not pleaded or proven the “special damages” required by Nebraska law for a libel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding he had adequate notice that the statutory requirement was at issue and failed to meet it.10FindLaw. Haffke v. Signal 88 LLC Haffke recovered nothing on either claim.
Patterns Across the Cases
The recurring scenario across the franchise suits is familiar in the security industry, where client relationships and patrol systems are the main assets. A franchisee exits the Signal 88 system or is pushed out, then keeps serving the same clients under a new name. Signal 88 responds with claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and enforcement of noncompete clauses. Former franchisees have pushed back by challenging those restrictions, and in Guardian Angel’s case by filing first.
Courts have not given Signal 88 everything it has sought. The Colorado noncompete injunction was denied on the ground that money damages could cover customer losses. In the RTC case, part of the injunction was dissolved. The Haffke verdict did go the company’s way, but only after a full trial and a state Supreme Court appeal. As of 2026, both the Masterson and Guardian Angel cases are still active.