FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

7-Eleven litigation history

What 7-Eleven disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 34; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $325K; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Numerous franchisee-initiated suits (wrongful termination, breach of contract, misrepresentation, FTC Franchise Rule/state franchise-act claims) and franchisor-initiated trademark/post-termination enforcement suits; also two FTC antitrust/consent-order matters (Sunoco divestiture Consent Order and Speedway acquisition Order), with a 2025 stipulated judgment requiring a $4.5M civil penalty for a Consent Order violation.

Item 3 (litigation) · 34 matters disclosed · 12 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (12)

Monceny Mendoza and Convenience Store 33004 Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-02-13 · United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida) · 2:25-cv-00206 (state: 11-2025-CA-000282-0001-01)
“… (Case No. 2:25-cv-00206, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida) (removed in March 2025 from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 11-2025-CA-000282-0001-01).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As of this writing, we have not yet responded to the complaint. This action is not yet set for trial.”
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Gurtar Sandhu and SSS Realm Corporation
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-03-06 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 8:24-cv-00490
“… (Case No. 8:24-cv-00490, United States District Court, Central District of California). On March 6, 2024, we sued former franchisee SSS Realm Corporation, and its owner, Gurtar Sandhu (“Defendants”), for trademark infringement and to enforce post- termination obligations in the franchise agreements.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter is set for trial on November 10, 2025.” (page 16)
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Rajwinder Atwal and S.S.S. Atwal, Inc.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-03-08 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 8:24-cv-00506
“… (Case No. 8:24-cv-00506, United States District Court, Central District of California). On March 8, 2024, we sued former franchisee S.S.S. Atwal, Inc., and its owner, Rajwinder Atwal (“Defendants”), for trademark infringement and to enforce post-termination obligations in the franchise agreements.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter is set for trial on November 10, 2025.”
Derrick Brown v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
filed 2024-12-02 · United States District Court, District of Colorado · 1:24-cv-03343-RTG
“… (Case No. 1:24-cv-03343-RTG, United States District Court, District of Colorado). On December 2, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Derrick Brown filed a lawsuit against us alleging that he and his family members had been repeatedly exposed to unsanitary conditions at 7-Eleven locations in Colorado, we failed to adequately train franchisees”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Ingeet Jetalpuria v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-03-05 · Superior Court, Orange County, California · 2024-01384263
“… (Case No. 2024-01384263, Superior Court, Orange County, California). On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff Ingeet Jetalpuria, who is a current franchisee, sued us under the California Labor Code, §§ 2775, 2785-87, alleging that we had misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and that Plaintiff should be classified as an employee.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Quick Biz LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-07-08 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (removed from the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia) · 2:24-cv-00472-AWA-RJK (state: CL-24-4006)
“… (Case No. 2:24-cv-00472-AWA-RJK, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) (removed on August 1, 2024 from the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, Case No. CL-24-4006). On July 8, 2024, former franchisee Quick Biz LLC sued us for wrongful termination of its franchise agreement and for fraud.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This action is set for trial September 9, 2025.”
Federal Trade Commission v. Seven & I Holdings, Co., LTD, et al.
pending
Government or regulatory action · filed 2023-12-04 · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 23-cv-03600
“… (Case No. 23-cv-03600, United States District Court for the District of Columbia). On December 4, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint against us and our parent company Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively, "7E and 7i") for violation of a Consent Order”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As of this writing, 7E and 7i have filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint. If 7E and 7i are required to answer the FTC’s complaint, 7E and 7i intend to deny liability and vigorously defend against the FTC’s action. This case is not yet set for trial.”
Rehan Hashmi, et al., v. 7 Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-06-09 · United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (removed from Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, Illinois) · 23-cv-03776 (state: 2023CH000125)
“… (Case No. 23-cv-03776, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (removed in June 2023 from Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, Illinois Case No. 2023CH000125)).”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Sasha 786 Corporation v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-13 · United States District Court, District of Nevada (removed from Eighth Judicial District, Clark County, Nevada) · 24-cv-00101-RFB-BNW (state: A-23-883376-C)
“… (Case No. 24-cv-00101-RFB-BNW, United States District Court, District of Nevada) (removed in January 2024 from Eighth Judicial District, Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A- 23-883376-C). On December 13, 2023, Syed Asghar Shaheen, who is known to us as Syed Shaheen Asghar, sued us for breach of contract and other claims”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Aysan Guvenal, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-04-08 · United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · 2:19-cv-00391-RCM
“… (Case No. 2:19-cv-00391-RCM, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania). On April 8, 2019, former franchisee Guvenal Incorporated and its owner, Aysan Guvenal, sued us for tortious interference with contracts and prospective contracts, breach of contract, and defamation.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter is set for trial on March 24, 2025.”
Sat Agiyar, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-10-03 · United States District Court, District of New Jersey (removed from Superior Court, New Jersey, Mercer County) · 3:19-cv-19994 (state: MER-L-001934-19)
“… (Case No. 3:19-cv-19994, United States District Court, District of New Jersey (removed on November 8, 2019 from Superior Court, New Jersey, Mercer County, Case No. MER-L- 001934-19)). On October 3, 2019, former franchisee Sat Agiyar, LLC sued us for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, fraudulent misrepresentation”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 27, 2024, and January 9, 2025, Plaintiff and Nash Patel appealed the court’s summary judgment rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.” (page 18)
Bassell Khorchid v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2018-04-28 · United States District Court, District of New Jersey · 1:18-cv-08525
“… (Case No. 1:18-cv-08525, United States District Court, District of New Jersey). On April 28, 2018, Plaintiff, a former franchisee, sued us for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The assigned judge then stayed the remainder of the case pending arbitration. Plaintiff has not yet instituted any arbitration proceedings.”

Concluded (3)

Padmja Retails Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-08-01 · United States District Court, District of Maryland · 1:24-CV-02245-ABA
“… (Case No. 1:24-CV-02245-ABA, United States District Court, District of Maryland). On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff Padmja Retails Inc., a former franchisee, sued us alleging violations of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law based on alleged improper financial performance representations”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 19, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which we agreed to pay Plaintiff and Dinesh Shukla $325,000 in exchange for mutual releases of all claims and the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.”
In the Matter of Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., 7-Eleven, Inc., and Marathon Petroleum Corporation
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2021-06-25 · Federal Trade Commission · Docket No. C-4748
“… (Federal Trade Commission, Docket No. C-4748). On June 25, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “After the public comment and notice period expired, the FTC issued a Final Order (the “Order”) on November 10, 2021 approving 7-Eleven’s acquisition of SPEEDWAY-branded facilities subject to certain required divestitures and other requirements.” (page 24)
Matter with no printed caption
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2018 · Federal Trade Commission
“Regarding the 2018 Consent Order referenced above, in 2018, 7E and 7i proposed to acquire approximately 1,100 retail fuel outlets with convenience stores from Sunoco LP. The FTC investigated this proposed acquisition and claimed it would violate the federal antitrust laws. 7E and 7i agreed to resolve the FTC’s claims by the 2018 Consent Order.”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The 2018 Consent Order required us to divest (or Sunoco to retain) certain fuel outlets in 76 local markets. In addition, it prohibited us from acquiring certain fuel outlets without prior notice to the FTC.”

This list shows 15 of the 34 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Significant litigation history involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and FTC actions suggests systemic franchisor-franchisee relationship issues

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the 7-Eleven verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls