Raising Cane’s “Chicken Smell” Lawsuit, Why Landlords Want an Eviction in 2026
The Raising Cane’s lawsuit is a high-stakes commercial lease dispute where the restaurant chain is suing its Boston landlord to block an eviction over the “smell of chicken fingers.” As of February 13, 2026, Raising Cane’s alleges that the odor complaints are a pretext used by the landlord to bypass a non-compete agreement and clear the way for a Panda Express.
Main Answer: The Back Bay “Chicken War” of 2026
This legal battle in Boston’s historic Back Bay district highlights a major conflict between legacy fast-food brands and landlords aiming to upscale their commercial tenants.
Lawsuit Overview and Background
The dispute involves the Raising Cane’s location at 755 Boylston Street, which opened in 2022 under a lease scheduled to run through 2037. In January 2026, the landlord, 755 Boylston LLC (affiliated with Heath Properties), issued a “Notice to Quit,” claiming the restaurant’s signature scent constituted a legal nuisance.
Raising Cane’s filed its lawsuit on January 23, 2026, in the Suffolk Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment to stop the eviction. The chain claims it spent over $230,000 on advanced filtration, deep cleanings, and HVAC upgrades, but the landlord continues to push for their removal to accommodate newer office tenants on the floors above.
Legal Claims: Contract Breach and Pretext
The lawsuit centers on two primary legal claims:
- Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: Raising Cane’s argues the landlord is interfering with its right to operate a business the lease specifically permitted (a chicken restaurant).
- Extortionate Scheme: The complaint alleges the “odor” issue is a fake excuse. Raising Cane’s claims the landlord is negotiating with Panda Express to take over an adjacent spot (formerly Starbucks). Under their current lease, Raising Cane’s is the “exclusive chicken restaurant” in the building; they allege the landlord is trying to force them to waive this right.
Case Proceedings and Status (February 2026)
Currently, the case is in the early procedural phase in Suffolk Superior Court.
- Current Stage: Raising Cane’s has asked for a preliminary injunction to stay in the building while the case is litigated.
- Evidence: The chain has submitted proof of $230,000 in mitigation expenses and reports from consultants (Sevan Consulting) claiming the smell issues are due to the building’s own poor construction of the second floor.
- Landlord Position: 755 Boylston LLC has declined public comment, citing “nuisance odors” as a breach of lease terms.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
If the court sides with Raising Cane’s, it could reinforce commercial lease exclusivity protections across the U.S. However, a win for the landlord could allow property owners to use “subjective nuisance” (like smell or noise) as a tool to break long-term leases in favor of more profitable tenants.
What You Must Know
The $230,000 Mitigation Effort
Raising Cane’s documented a massive effort to appease the landlord, including:
- Installing a high-efficiency pollution control unit.
- Sealing vents and floor slabs leading to the second-floor offices.
- A $34,000 deep-cleaning specifically for the office space above the restaurant.
Related article: RevitaLash Class Action Lawsuit, $4.17M Settlement Claim Deadline and Eligibility

Legal Principles: “Anticipated Nuisance”
Under Massachusetts law, a landlord who leases to a specific type of business generally cannot later claim that business’s standard operations (like frying chicken) are an “unexpected” nuisance. Courts will look at whether the smell exceeds what was reasonably expected at the time of signing in 2021.
What to Do Next
How to Follow the Case
Official filings for Raising Cane’s Restaurants, L.L.C. v. 755 Boylston LLC can be tracked via the Suffolk Superior Court online portal. For summaries of the most recent February 2026 hearings, check the Boston Business Journal or the Suffolk County Court records.
Understanding Commercial Lease Risks
If you are a commercial tenant, ensure your lease includes an “Exclusivity Clause” and a “Permitted Use” clause that clearly covers all aspects of your operation, including byproduct emissions like steam or odor. Consulting a commercial real estate attorney before signing can prevent “pretextual evictions” like the one alleged in this case.
FAQs About the Raising Cane’s Lawsuit
What is the Raising Cane’s lawsuit about?
Raising Cane’s is suing its landlord to stop an eviction based on claims that the restaurant’s chicken smell is a “nuisance” to office tenants.
Who are the parties involved?
The plaintiff is Raising Cane’s Restaurants, L.L.C., and the defendant is 755 Boylston LLC (managed by Heath Properties).
What are the specific legal claims?
Claims include breach of contract, violation of exclusive rights, and unfair business practices related to the landlord’s alleged negotiation with Panda Express.
When was the lawsuit filed?
The complaint was officially filed on January 23, 2026, following a “Notice to Quit” served earlier that month.
What is the current status?
The case is active in Suffolk Superior Court; Raising Cane’s remains open while seeking a court order to prevent the lease termination.
Could this lead to a class action?
Currently, this is a private lease dispute, not a class action, though it may set a precedent for other urban “nuisance” cases.
Where can I find more information?
Updates are available through the Suffolk County Superior Court and major legal news outlets in the New England area.
Last Updated: February 13, 2026
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah
