CJ-2026-915 - 357 INC. d/b/a RECO Construction v. CW STRONG RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: someone built an entire Dave’s Hot Chicken from scratch in Tulsa and now no one wants to pay for it—except the construction company, which is suing for over $330,000 like a very angry, very well-dressed creditor at a fast-food ribbon-cutting. That’s right: the crispy, spicy, cult-favorite chicken chain known for lines out the door and napkins drenched in sauce is now the centerpiece of a full-blown legal dumpster fire. And no, we’re not talking about the kitchen.

Meet the cast of characters. On one side, you’ve got RECO Construction, an Oklahoma-based contractor that sounds like it moonlights as a superhero team. They claim they showed up, did the work, and delivered a fully operational restaurant—like HGTV but with more permits and fewer fake smiles. On the other side? CW Strong Restaurant Group, LLC, the mysterious Texas-based entity that apparently owns this particular Dave’s Hot Chicken franchise. They’re the ones who allegedly signed the contract, approved the work, opened the doors, served spicy tenders to the masses, and then ghosted the bill. Also named: DRP Tulsa Hills Property Owner, LLC, the Delaware-based landlord of the shopping center where this drama unfolded, and Bank of America, N.A., because of course the bank is here—because nothing says “I love legal drama” like a mortgage interest in a strip mall property where people wait 45 minutes for a chicken sandwich.

So what went down? Picture this: summer of 2025. The air is thick with hope, construction dust, and the faint scent of future hot sauce spills. RECO Construction signs a deal with CW Strong to build out their shiny new Dave’s Hot Chicken location in the Tulsa Hills Shopping Center. This isn’t just slapping up drywall and calling it a day—this is a full commercial buildout. We’re talking plumbing, electrical, HVAC, flooring, custom counters, exhaust hoods, grease traps, the whole nine yards. It’s not just a restaurant; it’s a food-service facility that has to pass health codes, fire inspections, and probably a blessing from the city’s zoning priest. And RECO says they did it all—between July and December 2025—on time, on spec, and without a single viral TikTok of a worker flipping a table (allegedly).

Even better: the restaurant opened. Customers walked in. Orders were placed. People posted their #SpicyLevel5 pain on Instagram. And RECO? They were left holding the invoice. According to the filing, the work was approved. It was accepted. It was paid for in neither full nor part. Despite “repeated requests” and “numerous promises” (which sounds like a breakup text from someone who still owes you $200), the money never came. And now, RECO wants $331,523.71—yes, down to the penny—plus interest, fees, and whatever emotional damages you can slap onto a mechanic’s lien.

Which brings us to why they’re in court. RECO isn’t just mad—they’re strategic. They’ve filed three causes of action, and only one is the usual “you broke the contract, pay up” claim. The other two? They’re going full real estate legal ninja. First, breach of contract—simple enough: we did the work, you said you’d pay, you didn’t, so now we’re suing you. But then it gets spicy. RECO filed a mechanic’s lien on the property itself—meaning they’re not just chasing the restaurant owner, they’re going after the land where the restaurant sits. That’s like if your Uber driver sued the car manufacturer because you stiffed him on the fare. It’s bold. It’s dramatic. It’s also totally legal under Oklahoma law, which allows contractors to place liens on properties they’ve improved when they don’t get paid.

But wait—there’s more. RECO also filed a lien on the leasehold interest, meaning they’re going after the right to occupy the space, not the land itself. That’s like saying, “If you won’t pay me, at least let me kick you out so someone else can.” It’s a double-barreled legal shotgun aimed at both the building and the business’s right to be in it. And just to cover all bases, they’ve named the landlord and the bank—because if the property gets sold to satisfy the lien, those two parties might have something to say about who gets paid first. (Spoiler: the bank probably does, thanks to its mortgage.)

Now, about that $331,523.71. Is that a lot? For a chicken joint buildout? Honestly—yeah, it’s a chunk. But not outrageous. Commercial restaurant buildouts in shopping centers can easily run $250K to $500K depending on size, finishes, and whether you needed to relocate a gas line or install a 10-foot neon chicken sign (which, let’s be honest, would be awesome). This isn’t someone charging for gold-plated fry baskets—it’s likely real costs for real work. And if RECO delivered a turnkey location that’s now making money? That number starts to look like a bargain. So while it’s not chump change, it’s also not “build a spaceship” money. It’s “build a very successful fast-casual restaurant” money.

So what do we want? What’s our take on this greasy little saga? Look, we’re not rooting for blood. We’re not saying CW Strong should be deep-fried and served with ranch. But come on. You open a restaurant. You serve chicken. You take money from customers. You don’t pay the people who made that possible? That’s not just bad business—it’s tasteless. And not in the spicy, fun way. In the “you probably shouldn’t be trusted with a franchise agreement” way.

The most absurd part? That this is even a fight. This isn’t a dispute over shoddy work. There’s no claim of defects. No one says the bathrooms leak or the fryers don’t work. In fact, the restaurant is open and operational. That means RECO did their job. The chicken is spicy. The lines are long. The receipts are flowing. And yet, someone’s trying to play financial hide-and-seek with a construction bill that’s bigger than most people’s mortgages.

We’re not lawyers. We’re entertainers. But even we know this one rule: if you hire someone to build your dream, and the dream opens and thrives… you pay the builder. Otherwise, the next time you try to expand, the only thing getting constructed might be a case file. And honestly? That’s the spiciest outcome of all.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Dylan T. Duren

ROBINETT, SWARTZ & DUREN

Relief Sought

$331,524 Monetary

Plaintiffs

357 INC. d/b/a RECO Construction business
Rep: Dylan T. Duren

Defendants

CW STRONG RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC business
DRP TULSA HILLS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC business
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract
2	Lien Foreclosure (against the Property)
3	Lien Foreclosure (against the leasehold)

Petition Text

1,788 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA 357 INC. d/b/a RECO CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff, v. CW STRONG RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; DRP TULSA HILLS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff 357 Inc. d/b/a RECO Construction ("RECO"), for its causes of action herein, states: 1. RECO is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, CW Strong Restaurant Group, LLC ("Restaurant") is a Texas limited liability company that conducts business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, DRP Tulsa Hills Property Owner, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that conducts business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 4. Upon information and belief, Bank of America, N.A. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. 5. The contract in question was entered into and performed in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 6. The real property that is the subject matter of this lawsuit is located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, and venue is proper herein. First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract For its first cause of action, RECO incorporates paragraphs 1 – 7 herein by reference and further states: 8. Effective as of July 7, 2025, RECO and Restaurant entered into a construction contract (the “Contract”) to perform work at the Tulsa Hills Shopping Center (the “Property”) in a building that Restaurant occupied and planned to open a new Dave’s Hot Chicken location. 9. From July 2025 to December 2025, RECO performed its work in accordance with the Contract. 10. Restaurant approved and accepted RECO’s work, and the Dave’s Hot Chicken location has been open and operational since RECO timely and properly completed its work. 11. Restaurant, however, failed to timely and fully pay RECO for its work and breached the Contract. 12. Despite repeated requests from RECO for payment, and despite numerous promises from Restaurant to pay RECO, Restaurant has failed to fully pay RECO as required in the Contract. 13. As a result, RECO is entitled to judgment against Restaurant in the principal sum of $331,523.71, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest accrued and accruing. Second Cause of Action – Lien Foreclosure (against the Property) For its second cause of action, RECO incorporates paragraphs 1 – 13 herein by reference and further states: 14. From July 2025 to December 2025, RECO performed work at the Property, the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit A hereto. 15. RECO’s work improved the Property. 16. Because RECO was not paid in full for its work at the Property, RECO, on January 22, 2026, filed a mechanic’s lien in the office of the Tulsa County Clerk as Doc # L2026000689 against the Property in the principal sum of $331,523.71 (the “Real Property Lien”). 17. The Real Property Lien is valid and enforceable. 18. RECO is therefore entitled to judgment in rem against the Property in the principal sum of $331,523.71, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest accrued and accruing from the Real Property Lien filing date until paid, subject to the first and prior mortgage of Bank of America, N.A. 19. Restaurant holds a leasehold interest in the Property and should appear herein to establish its interest. 20. DRP Tulsa Hills Property Owner, LLC owns the Property and should appear herein to establish its interest. 21. Bank of America, N.A. may claim an interest in the Property based upon its mortgage, Doc # 2024046817, filed on June 12, 2024, in the office of the Tulsa County Clerk and should appear herein to establish its interest. **Third Cause of Action – Lien Foreclosure (against the leasehold)** For its third cause of action, RECO incorporates paragraphs 1 – 21 herein by reference and further states: 22. From July 2025 to December 2025, RECO performed work at the Property, the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit A hereto. 23. RECO’s work improved the Property. 24. Because RECO was not paid in full for its work at the Property, RECO, on February 9, 2026, filed a mechanic’s lien in the office of the Tulsa County Clerk as Doc # L2026001277 against Restaurant’s leasehold interest in the Property in the principal sum of $331,523.71 (the “Leasehold Lien”). 25. The Leasehold Lien is valid and enforceable. 26. RECO is therefore entitled to judgment in rem against Restaurant’s leasehold interest in the Property in the principal sum of $331,523.71, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest accrued and accruing from the Leasehold Lien filing date until paid. 27. Restaurant holds a leasehold interest in the Property and should appear herein to establish its interest. 28. DRP Tulsa Hills Property Owner, LLC owns the Property and should appear herein to establish its interest. 29. Bank of America, N.A. may claim an interest in the Property based upon its mortgage, Doc # 2024046817, filed on June 12, 2024, in the office of the Tulsa County Clerk and should appear herein to establish its interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 357, Inc. d/b/a RECO Construction respectfully requests that judgment be entered as requested herein and for all other and further relief, either at law or in equity, to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, By: ____________________________ Dylan T. Duren, OBA No. 31837 ROBINETT, SWARTZ & DUREN 401 S. Boston Ave., Suite 1600 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 (918) 592-3699 (918) 592-0963 (facsimile) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff 357, Inc. d/b/a RECO Construction LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT I: Parcel 6A: A tract of land that is part of Lots Three (3), Four (4), and Six (6), Block Two (2), of TULSA HILLS, A Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 6154, said tract of land being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point that is the Northwest corner of said Lot 6, said point also being on the Easterly Right-of-Way of South Olympia Avenue; Thence South 66°49'06" East along the Northerly line of Lot 6 for a distance of 206.77 feet to the Point of Beginning of said tract of land; Thence along the Northerly line of Lot 6 as follows: South 66°49'06" East for a distance of 27.22 feet; North 23°10'54" East for a distance of 117.00 feet; South 66°49'06" East for a distance of 136.02 feet; North 23°10'54" East for a distance of 31.50 feet; South 66°49'06" East for a distance of 68.00 feet; South 23°10'54" West for a distance of 57.33 feet; South 66°49'06" East for a distance of 220.64 feet; North 23°10'54" East for a distance of 11.01 feet; South 66°49'07" East for a distance of 89.50 feet; North 23°10'56" East for a distance of 23.98 feet; South 66°49'04" East for a distance of 143.92 feet to the most Easterly Northeast corner of Lot 6; Thence South 44°09'08" West along the Easterly line of Lot 6 for a distance of 26.69 feet to a point of curve; Thence Southwesterly along said Easterly line on a curve to the left with a central angle of 20°58'22" and a radius of 98.33 feet for a distance of 35.99 feet with a chord bearing of South 33°39'57" West and a chord length of 35.79 feet to a non-tangent point; Thence South 23°10'54" West for a distance of 342.45 feet to the most Easterly Southeast corner of Lot 6; Thence South 89°02'06" West along the Southerly line of Lot 6 for a distance of 376.63 feet; Thence South 01°17'25" East for a distance of 61.17 feet to a point that is the most Southerly corner of Lot 6, said point also being the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4; Thence continuing South 01°17'25" East along the Easterly line of said Lot 4 and Lot 3 for a distance of 1289.13 feet to a point that is the most Southeasterly corner of Lot 3; Thence North 57°02'28" West along the Southerly line of Lot 3 for a distance of 120.98 feet to a point on the Westerly line of an existing overland drainage easement; Thence along said Westerly line as follows: North 01°17'25" West for a distance of 365.12 feet; North 06°40'56" West for a distance of 198.44 feet; North 16°40'13" East for a distance of 60.47 feet; North 03°20'51" West for a distance of 464.98 feet; North 35°17'24" West for a distance of 141.62 feet; North 62°29'15" West for a distance of 388.31 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot 4; Thence North 23°11'13" East along said Westerly line for a distance of 68.82 feet to a point that is the Northwesterly corner of Lot 4, said point also being the Southwesterly corner of Lot 6; Thence along the Westerly line of Lot 6 as follows: North 23°11'13" East for a distance of 73.87 feet; South 21°49'10" East for a distance of 35.35 feet; South 66°49'33" East for a distance of 158.04 feet; North 68°10'40" East for a distance of 35.36 feet; Thence North 23°00'41" East along a Westerly line of Lot 6 and its Northeasterly extension for a distance of 412.32 feet to the Point of Beginning of said tract of land. Parcel 6B: A tract of land that is part of Lot Six (6), Block Two. (2), of TULSA HILLS, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 6154, said tract of land being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point that is the most Westerly Northwest corner of said Lot 6, said point also being the most Westerly corner of Lot 7 in Block 2 of TULSA HILLS; Thence South 66°49'06" East along a Northerly line of Lot 6 for a distance of 206.77 feet; Thence South 23°00'41" West for a distance of 186.67 feet to a point that is the most Easterly corner of Lot 5 in Block 2, TULSA HILLS; Thence North 66°38'00" West along a Southerly line of Lot 6 and the Northeasterly line of said Lot 5 for a distance of 207.35 feet to the most Northerly corner of Lot 5 and a Westerly corner of Lot 6; Thence North 23°11'13" East along the Westerly line of Lot 6 for a distance of 186.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of said tract of land. Parcel 5B: A tract of land that is part of Lot Five (5), Block Two (2), of TULSA HILLS, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County State of Oklahoma, according to the Recorded Plat No. 6154, said tract of land being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point that is the most Northerly corner of said Lot 5; Thence South 66°38'00" East along the Northeasterly line of Lot 5 for a distance of 207.35 feet to the most Easterly corner of lot; Thence South 23°00'41" West along the Southeasterly line for 15.25 feet; Thence North 66°38'00" West and parallel with the Northeasterly line of Lot 5 for a distance of 207.39 feet to a point on the Northwesternly line of Lot 5; Thence North 23°11'13" East along said Northwesternly line for a distance of 15.25 feet to the Point of Beginning of said tract of land. TRACT II: Parcel Alpha: All of Lot Four (4), in Block One (1); Lots Seven (7), Nine (9), Ten (10), Twelve (12), and Thirteen (13), In Block Two (2), and Reserve Areas E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L, all in TULSA HILLS, a Subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the Recorded Plat No. 6154.