Baja Fresh Mexican Grill Franchise Cost & 2026 FDD Data
54/100
Second tier
54 this brand51 Quick-Service Restaurants medianlikely 50–58 (high confidence)
Higher is better · an editorial assessment, not investment advice
#1,461 of 3,069 graded brands
Why a B: Helped by financial health and transparency. Held back by unit economics. See all six factors
- Total investment
- $429K – $1.0M
- excl. site work and real estate
- Avg gross sales
- $823K
- “All franchised outlets”, 65 outlets; not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 22.0%
1 in 5 SBA 7(a) loans to Baja Fresh Mexican Grill owners charged off (9 of 41 resolved loans, approved FY2004 to FY2011); Quick-Service Restaurants median 17.6%.
Data from the FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records. Analysis by FranchiseVerdict · Methodology · Website · Report an error · Franchisor? Claim this listing
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026 FDD
Per the 2026 FDD, a Baja Fresh Mexican Grill franchise requires a total initial investment of $429K – $1.0M, excluding site work and real estate, including a $30K franchise fee. Once open, the ongoing royalty is 5.0%. Per the 2026 FDD, average gross sales were $823K (Item 19 group “All franchised outlets”, 65 outlets; gross sales, not profit). SBA 7(a) loans show a 22.0% charge-off rate on 41 resolved loans. Verdict grade: B (Second tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice.
Sources: 2026 FDD · SBA 7(a) loan records (FOIA) · What one unit could make and lose →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low (issued within the last 12 months)
Evidence for the headline figures: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored7 of 7 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
Quick verdict · vs Quick-Service Restaurants median
Top edge: green = better than the Quick-Service Restaurants median by more than 10%, red = worse by more than 10%, gray = within 10% or no benchmark. Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a).
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Methodology
Bottom line
- RETURNSAverage gross sales of $823K/year (outlet median $813K; Item 19 group “All franchised outlets”, 65 outlets; gross sales, not profit).
- GROWTHIn the latest Item 20 year, the number of franchised outlets did not change.
- LEGAL18 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 2 name the franchisor or its predecessor, 15 its parent or affiliates, 1 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
AT STAKEOne unit at the Item 7 midpoint: $95K a year in payments on assumed SBA 7(a)-style terms.You put in about $146K of your own cash and personally guarantee a $585K loan. Assumptions are labeled in Sales; not investment advice.See what one unit could make and lose
Things to check before you sign (3)
- SBA 7(a) charge-off 22.0% on 41 resolved loans approved FY2004 to FY2011, above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 17.6% (175 brands).
- The franchisor keeps the right to compete inside your territory (Item 12, territory).
- The franchisor receives rebates or payments from suppliers you buy from (Item 8, required suppliers).
Checked and clear: no auditor doubt that the franchisor can keep operating, no net loss of franchised outlets in the latest Item 20 years, no pending lawsuit naming the franchisor, no rule that the owner must run it personally and the full filing on file, and an Item 19 average from 65 units. Not on file here, so ask: jury-trial waiver.
What to do next
Step 1: Read the FDD itself.
Free: the franchisor must give it to you at least 14 days before you sign or pay. Or look it up in a state registry (Wisconsin, Minnesota, California). What to read first.
Step 2: Talk to current and former owners.
Free: Item 20 of the FDD lists every current owner and those who left last year, most with a phone number. Questions to ask.
Step 3: Talk to an SBA lender.
Free: the SBA's Lender Match, or the lenders already lending to this brand in the SBA section. Ask what you would personally guarantee and what the monthly payment would be. If you plan to use retirement savings, ask a CPA about the rules for that first.
Step 4: Have a franchise attorney review the FDD and agreement.
Free: your state bar's lawyer referral service can name franchise lawyers, and many offer a short first consultation. Bring the checks listed above.
Research steps, not investment or legal advice.
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost (the Item 7 midpoint) is 50% above the Quick-Service Restaurants median ($487K).
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7 (fees and startup costs)
Do you qualify? The filing states no minimum net worth or liquid capital. Ask BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC (Item 1: 9311 East Via De Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258) and your lender what they require, and keep living costs for the first year outside the deal.
FDD Item 7 (startup costs) · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $30K | $30K |
| Working capital (first 3 months) | $42K | $74K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $356K | $931K |
| Total initial investment | $429K | $1.0M |
Source: Baja Fresh Mexican Grill 2026 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 6 · what you pay once you are open
Ongoing fees
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fundBrand-wide marketing pool. Currently 3% of weekly Gross Sales to the National Advertising Fund; may be unilaterally increased up to a maximum of 4% on 30 days' notice. | 3.0% of gross sales |
| Technology feeData Fees up to $75/month for POS data polling, plus a $55/month POS Help Desk Phone Support Maintenance Contract Fee. | $75/month |
| Transfer feeItem 17 lists $15,000 | $10,000 |
| Total fee loadabove the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.0% (heavy) | 8.0% of sales |
What do units actually make?
Average gross sales are 13% below the Quick-Service Restaurants median ($950K).
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19 (sales and earnings)
Items 6 (other fees), 7 (startup costs) and 19 (sales and earnings) · assumptions labeled
What you could make and lose: one unit
What one Baja Fresh Mexican Grill unit would ask of you, from the filing's Item 7 total and labeled assumptions.
Average gross sales are $823K (FDD p.83), and the royalty and ad fund take about $66K of that a year (Item 6). This brand's Item 19 does not print cost lines. Enter your own from a lease quote, a payroll plan and calls with current owners. So this box does not estimate a profit. To cover the loan payment alone, one unit has to clear $95K a year after its food, labor, rent and other costs and the franchisor's fees.
How these figures are worked out
- Loan (assumption): 80% of the $731K Item 7 midpoint is a $585K loan, paid over 10 years at 10.5%: $95K a year. SBA 7(a)-style terms on a long-term rate; your lender sets yours. Baja Fresh Mexican Grill's past SBA 7(a) loans averaged 6.0% at approval; 7(a) rates move with the prime rate, so 10.5% is a current-rate assumption, not this brand's history.
What you put at risk
Your own cash in: about $146K Assumption (the part the loan does not cover of the $731K Item 7 midpoint), plus whatever anything Item 7 leaves out (its notes say what). The loan is $585K.
Personal guarantee. SBA 7(a) loans require a personal guarantee from anyone who owns 20% or more of the business. If the unit cannot pay, the lender can collect from you personally, which can include your savings and your home. The worst case is losing the cash you put in and still owing the rest of the loan.
Gross sales are not profit, and none of these figures is take-home pay until tax and every operating cost are paid. The assumptions are ours, not the filing's. Not investment advice.
Returns modelOne unit · several units · editable
One unit
One unit: what is left after the loan payment
Gross sales, minus the franchisor's fees and the operating costs, is the unit's EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). Minus an assumed loan payment, that is what is left for you, before tax. Gross sales are not profit.
This brand's Item 19 does not print cost lines. Enter your own from a lease quote, a payroll plan and calls with current owners. Invested capital is the Item 7 total, which already includes its working-capital (additional funds) line.
Returns model · one unit
What would one Baja Fresh Mexican Grill unit leave you each year after the loan payment?
Item 19: $822,568 average for 65 outlets (All franchised outlets). Use a figure for outlets like yours if yours differ.
Gross sales, not profit: the costs below decide what is left.
The filing also sets a minimum or cap on these fees: “Currently 3% of weekly Gross Sales to the National Advertising Fund; may be unilaterally increased up to a maximum of 4% on 30 days' notice.” (Item 6). This model applies the percentages, so at low sales the real fee can be higher than shown here.
Item 6, as stored, a year. A fixed fee, so it comes off EBITDA as dollars, not a share of sales.
This brand's Item 19 does not print cost lines. Enter your own from a lease quote, a payroll plan and calls with current owners.
Illustrative category typicals, not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Item 7 midpoint of $429K to $1.0M
Item 7's $42K to $74K additional funds are already in the total
Left after the loan payment · per year
The unit's EBITDA minus the assumed loan payment. Before tax, depreciation and any cost your inputs leave out (insurance, accounting and legal, licenses, technology fees): not take-home pay.
Gross sales are not profit. Neither the filing nor a stated assumption on this page supplies COGS, labor, rent / occupancy and other operating costs. Enter your own (a lease quote, owner calls) and the model runs on it.
Loan of $585K at 10.5% over 10 years, an assumption, not a quote. Return and payback are before tax, depreciation and the costs above. The loan usually needs your personal guarantee.
Buying several existing units? The acquisition scenario
Buying several units
What buying a few existing units could return
Prices an existing operator of a few units off the single-unit EBITDA above, after shared services, and finances it with an SBA 7(a) loan, a conventional loan and a seller note. It shows the yearly return on your cash (IRR), whether year-1 earnings cover the loan payments (DSCR) and how the price is paid for. It starts at 5 units; every deal term is an assumption you can change, and none is from the FDD.
Not modelled yet
Gross sales are not profit. Neither the filing nor a stated assumption on this page supplies COGS, labor, rent / occupancy and other operating costs. Enter your own (a lease quote, owner calls) and the model runs on it.
This scenario starts from a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in the one-unit model above and it runs on that figure, or take it to the full ROI workbench, where the multi-unit and acquisition models accept your own per-unit economics.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD · filed by BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC
Financial performance
- Top and bottom 20%
- $360K→$1.3M
- Bottom group → top group: the top and bottom 20% as the filing reports them
Percentile ranks within Quick-Service Restaurants
Each rank is among the Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report that figure (the count is under each bar).
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Baja Fresh Mexican Grill compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Who are you contracting with?
BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC, owned by MTY Franchising USA, Inc.
Item 1 (the franchisor) · who you're contracting with
The franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC
- Parent company
- MTY Franchising USA, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- MTY Food Group, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- Triune, LLC (formerly Triune Corporation) and Fresh Enterprises, LLC (formerly Fresh Enterprises, Inc.)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer, MTY Food Group Inc.
- Eric Lefebvre
- Incorporated in
- Delaware
- HQ
- 9311 East Via De Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 8
27 other brands on this site name MTY Food Group, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Barrio Queen (grade B)
- Blimpie (grade D)
- Chicken Strips and Dips (grade C)
- Cold Stone Creamery (grade C)
- Extreme Pita (grade D)
- Famous Dave’s (grade B)
- Ginger Sushi + Poke Shop (grade C)
- Grabbagreen (grade B)
- Great Steak (grade C)
- Kahala Coffee Traders (grade B)
- La Diperie (grade B)
- Manchu WOK (grade B)
- Maui Wowi (grade D)
- Mucho Burrito (grade B)
- NrGize Lifestyle Cafe (grade B)
- Papa Murphy's (grade B)
- Pinkberry (grade B)
- Planet Smoothie (grade C)
- Samurai Sam’s Teriyaki Grill (grade D)
- Sauce Pizza / Wine (grade C)
- Surf City Squeeze (grade C)
- TacoTime (grade C)
- Thai Express (grade C)
- Village Inn (grade B)
- +3 more
Portfolio: MTY Food Group
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2026 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill is a quick-service restaurant concept offering fresh, high-quality Mexican-style food products such as burritos, tacos, quesadillas and related menu items, with on-premises dining and take-out service, operated through Traditional Restaurant and Non-Traditional (captive-market) franchise programs.
- CEO
- Eric Lefebvre
- States and territories listed
- 11
- registered or offered in, as the filing lists them (DC and territories included); not where units may open
Is the system healthy?
0 franchised outlets over the two years to 2025 (67 to 67, 0.0% in total, 0.0% a year compounded).
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20 (outlets opened, closed and transferred)
Item 20 (outlet counts) · unit dynamics
The growth chart
- Company-owned
- 1
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 99%
- vs corporate-owned
Last fiscal year · Item 20 rates and pipeline
- Signed, not yet open
- 15
- 0.22 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 5
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Item 20 · franchised units at year end
Franchised units held at 67 from 2023 to 2025
Axis does not start at zero.
Source and method
Government records
SBA loan data
Lenders charged off 22.0% of 41 resolved SBA 7(a) loans, above the 17.6% category median. 7(a) is the SBA's main small-business loan; a resolved loan was paid in full or charged off.
- Loans on file
- 41
- SBA 7(a) loans matched to this brand, incl. those still being repaid
- Loan volume
- $16.5M
- Average loan
- $404K
- loan volume divided by loans
- Charge-off rate
- 22.0%
- 9 of 41 resolved loans
- Paid in full
- 78.0%
- of resolved loans
- Recent-loan charge-off
- No recent loans
- no SBA 7(a) loan approved since FY2013
- Lenders
- 18
- Average interest rate
- 6.0%
- Jobs reported
- 1,144
- Lender concentration
- 27%
- top lender's share
Cumulative: every 7(a) loan matched to this brand in the SBA’s FOIA files, approved FY1991 onward. Historical lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
Benchmark: the median Quick-Service Restaurants brand charges off 17.6% (175 brands with a published rate, same cumulative window and source). This brand is 4.3 points above it.
The approval-year breakdown covers 32 of the 41 resolved loans and 7 of the 9 charge-offs (FY2004 to FY2011).
SBA 7(a) · charge-off rate by approval year
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill charge-off rate by loan approval year
Only 1 of these 5 approval years has 10 or more resolved loans, too few to draw a trend. Each year’s numbers are in the table below.
Show the numbers by year
| Year | Resolved | Charged off | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 5 | 0 | Too few |
| 2008 | 3 | 1 | Too few |
| 2009 | 6 | 1 | Too few |
| 2010 | 12 | 4 | 33.3% |
| 2011 | 6 | 1 | Too few |
Source and method
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Full SBA lending reportlenders · charge-off rate · trend
Lender network · SBA 7(a)
SBA Lending Report
Lender, state and yearly detail for Baja Fresh Mexican Grill from SBA 7(a) FOIA loan records.
- Average SBA guarantee
- 76%
- Average interest rate
- 6.0%
- Lender concentration
- 27%
- Jobs reported
- 1,144
Top 10 SBA lenders by loan count
| Loans | Volume | Charge-off |
|---|---|---|
| PCB Bank | ||
| 11 | $4.4M | Not on file |
| EagleBank | ||
| 5 | $3.9M | Not on file |
| Columbia Bank | ||
| 4 | $2.0M | Not on file |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | ||
| 3 | $683K | Not on file |
| Wells Fargo Bank National Association | ||
| 2 | $1.7M | Not on file |
A lender’s rate counts only its resolved loans, the loans that have finished (paid in full or charged off); a 0.0% often means few of its loans have finished. Under 10 resolved loans, the rate reads “Too few”.
Charge-off rate by state (top 10 by loans)
| State | Loans | Charged off | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA California | 22 | 3 | 13.6%22 resolved |
| VA Virginia | 7 | 1 | Too few7 resolved |
| DC Washington DC | 2 | 2 | Too few2 resolved |
| MD Maryland | 2 | 0 | Too few2 resolved |
| NJ New Jersey | 2 | 0 | Too few2 resolved |
| PA Pennsylvania | 2 | 2 | Too few2 resolved |
| CO Colorado | 1 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
| IL Illinois | 1 | 1 | Too few1 resolved |
| OR Oregon | 1 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
| WA Washington | 1 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
Rate: charged-off loans over resolved loans (paid in full plus charged off), shown from 10 resolved loans. "Too few": under 10 resolved. The Loans column counts every approval in the window, including loans still being repaid.
SBA 7(a) loans approved per year
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA loan-level data, matched to the brand by FranchiseVerdict.
A 22.0% charge-off rate means about 1 in 5 resolved SBA 7(a) loans to this brand was charged off. The approval-year chart above shows which years they came from.
What are the risks?
Main risk in the grade: unit economics. The reasons are below.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Verdict grade + FDD Items 3 (litigation), 4 (bankruptcy), 8 (required suppliers), 16 (what you may sell), 21 (audited financials)
Risk and legal
Grade B: Second tier, 54/100 (category median 51); the full grade is at the top of the page.
How the grade is built
Why a B, factor by factor
- Financial health HelpsAudited financials; no going-concern doubt; statements are the parent's, so this stays near neutral
- Unit economics Weighs on it, weakest dimensionAvg gross sales $823K on a $731K investment midpoint, 1.1x (gross sales, not profit)
- Unit growth Neutral0 franchised outlets over the two years to 2025 (67 to 67, 0.0% in total, 0.0% a year compounded); turnover 7.5%
- Scale Neutral67 franchised units, +1 company-owned (68 in all); franchising since 1991
- Legal Neutral2 matters naming the franchisor among the Item 3 matters we list (2.9 per 100 outlets)
- Transparency HelpsItem 19 discloses financial performance; audited financials
- Adjustments after the six dimensions (-15 points)SBA loan record: the SBA charge-off rate (22.0% on 41 resolved loans approved FY2004 to FY2011) is between 20% and 50%, a range the score counts against a brand, so it took 15 points off. The score uses fixed ranges, not the category median, so a rate below its category median can still cost points.
From the six scored dimensions, an editorial assessment, not investment advice. How the score is built
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Item 3 discloses ~19 distinct litigation/arbitration/administrative matters involving BFAH's predecessors and MTY-affiliated brands (Extreme Pita, Kahala Franchising, sweetFrog, Famous Dave's, Wetzel's Pretzels, Papa Murphy's, Triune/BFAH, Maui Wowi, Blimpie), mostly franchisee disputes over breach of contract, FDD/financial-performance misrepresentation, and state franchise-registration violations; largest disclosed payout was up to $4 million per plaintiff group in the Papa Murphy's Washington FIPA litigation. No bankruptcy disclosed.
Largest disclosed settlement in the franchisor's own cases: $50,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 financials are the CONSOLIDATED statements of MTY Franchising USA, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the franchisor is BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary within this consolidated group). Statements are in thousands of US dollars; all figures scaled x1000 to whole USD. FY ended Nov 30, 2025 (yr1) and Nov 30, 2024 (yr2). Balance sheet reconciles: assets 1,447,070K = liabilities 1,176,013K + stockholder's equity 271,057K. Net income 2025 = 30,677K; single "Revenue" line 604,239K (2025) / 597,538K (2024), no separate other-revenue line on the face of the income statement.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results; the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
Ask what the franchisor earns on the supplies it sells you or the rebates it takes (Item 8).
- Franchisor sells you products: No
- Franchisor takes supplier rebates: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: Yes
Litigation case detail18 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor and its predecessor
Concluded (2)
State of Maryland Determination; Case Number 2012-0073
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (Baja Fresh franchisor until July 26, 2017; our predecessor) · filed 2012 · State of Maryland (Office of the Attorney General) · 2012-0073
“… In February 2012, the State of Maryland alleged that during the period January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2009, Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) did not retain signed acknowledgements of receipt reflecting the dates that its Franchise Disclosure Document was delivered to certain Maryland residents and non-residents;”Page 32 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “pay the Office of the Attorney General the sum of $50,000 as a civil penalty; (iii) retain copies of all acknowledgments of receipt confirming dates that prospective Maryland franchisees received any Maryland Franchise Disclosure Documents;” (page 33)
State of Virginia Determination; Case Number SEC-2012-00027
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (Baja Fresh franchisor until July 26, 2017; our predecessor) · filed 2012 · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2012-00027
“… In February 2012, the Division of Securities and Retail Franchising of the State Corporation Commission (the "Commission") alleged that during 2009 Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) offered or sold franchises in Virginia in 2009 that were not registered under the Virginia Retail Franchising Act (the “Virginia Act”);”Page 33 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “to pay Virginia the sum of $25,000 as a penalty and the sum of $5,000 to defray the Commission’s costs of investigation;”
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (12)
Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC
settledBrought by a franchisee · Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C. (affiliate) · filed 2019-09-11 · American Arbitration Association, Los Angeles, California · 01-19-0002-9326
“… Los Angeles, California; AAA Case No.01-19- 0002-9326. On or about July 19, 2017, we entered into a franchise agreement with Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. (then known as Triple Scoops, Inc.).”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Respondent/Counter Claimant paid Claimant/Counter Respondent the sum of $125,000. The matter was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.”
Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. (affiliate) · filed 2016-03-14 · American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota · 01 16 0000 8549
“… American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case No. 01 16 0000 8549.”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release (the “Settlement Agreement”), dated August 22, 2016, with Famous Dave’s. The Settlement Agreement included the following material terms: (i) the territorial rights granted to Claimants in the Franchise Agreements were modified;”
SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.
settledBrought by the franchisor · SFF, L.L.C. (successor to SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C.; sweetFrog brand acquired by our parent MTY USA) · filed 2016-08-29 · City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court · CL16-3927
“… City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court; Case No. CL16-3927. On August 29, 2016, SFF, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against three sweetFrog franchisee entities, Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2016. Concluded Arbitration and Litigation Involving Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case No. 01 16 0000 8549.” (page 27)
Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, LLC; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD , Inc. SR Long Beach FD, Inc.; SR Palmdale FD, Inc.; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc.; SR Simi Valley FD, Inc.; SR Tracey FD, Inc.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. (affiliate) · filed 2015-07-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division · BC589329
“Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, LLC; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.;”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 29, 2018, the parties agreed to enter into a confidential settlement agreement and a mutual release of claims (the “El Centro Settlement Agreement”), which contained the following material terms: (i) SR Defendants received $75,000 towards the payment of their attorney’s fees contingent” (page 28)
KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (affiliate) · filed 2015-02-17 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC572565
“… Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Case No.: BC572565.”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On June 19, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Kahala repurchased Koho’s Area Developer territory for the sum of $75,000 and forgave the remaining damages owed in the amount of $130,000.” (page 26)
Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee
settledBrought by a franchisee · The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc. (now MTY Franchising USA, Inc., our parent) · filed 2015-06-22 · Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County · 15-2-15120-7
“Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee;”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 11, 2016, in which Defendants paid Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000.”
Rob & Bud’s Pizza, LLC v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, LLC
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International, LLC (affiliate) · filed 2015-04-17 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 5:15-cv-05090-TLB
“… United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 5:15-cv- 05090-TLB.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was dismissed with prejudice as part of a settlement with plaintiff in this case and the LMP case under which Papa Murphy’s purchased plaintiff’s nine Papa Murphy’s stores at an agreed upon value of the stores’ assets plus $500,000.” (page 31)
DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.; Mitch and Kristen Brink, Brink Holdings Inc., et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.
settledBrought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International LLC (affiliate) and related entities and managers · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court, Clark County · 14-2-00904-0; 14-2-01743-3
“DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, Pizza Enterprises LLC, Alan and Denise Barnett, DOB Enterprises, Inc., Douglas and Lesia Billing, Rob & Bud's Pizza, Robert J. Dickerson Trust UA, Rob Dickerson, 4LM Enterprises, Inc., Jana and”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Each of the plaintiff groups entered into settlements with Papa Murphy’s in which they dismissed all of their claims against defendants with prejudice and the action was dismissed in June 2020.” (page 30)
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2007-0194
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor to affiliate Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · filed 2007-09-12 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2007-0194
“… On September 12, 2007, “MWF” entered into a Consent Order with the Maryland Commissioner resulting from MWF inadvertently entering into two”Page 32 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2005-0651
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor to affiliate Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · filed 2005-11-11 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2005-0651
“… On November 11, 2005, Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., the predecessor franchisor of the Maui Wowi brand (“MWF”), entered into a Consent Order with”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Matter with no printed caption
judgmentGovernment or regulatory action · Blimpie Associates, Ltd. (predecessor of a sister MTY brand) and Joseph Dornbush · filed 1992 · New York Department of Law
“In May 1992, Blimpie Associates, Ltd. (“Blimpie”) and Joseph Dornbush (formerly the President of Blimpie) (collectively “Respondents”) responded to a claim by the New York Department of Law that it had sold franchises during a period of time when Blimpie’s prospectus had not been updated by amendment.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “to pay the sum of $18,000 to the State of New York as an additional allowance. Respondents paid the $18,000 in May 1992 and executed the consent judgment on August 25, 1992.”
In the Matter of SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. f.k.a. Imagination Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sweet Frog
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. (predecessor of SFF, L.L.C.; sweetFrog brand now franchised by our parent MTY USA) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2012-0055
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2012-0055.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Status not stated in the filing (3)
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Byron Washington and Bram Berg
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (affiliate) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1:25-cv-06392
“… United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;”Page 34 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Golden Enterprises, Inc.; DBH Associates, LP, Deseret Sales, Inc., Randy Herzog, Laurie Herzog, Amy Wilson, Rob Wilson, Clare Hunter, Deobrah Hunter
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (affiliate) · United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Washington · 2:25-cv-00426
“Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Golden Enterprises, Inc.; DBH Associates, LP, Deseret Sales, Inc., Randy Herzog, Laurie Herzog, Amy Wilson, Rob Wilson, Clare Hunter, Deobrah Hunter;”Page 33 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Mid Valley Foods, Inc., Candyce Dilbeck, Steve Hopkins, Gegory M. Hopkins
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (affiliate) · United States District Court in and for the District of Arizona · 2:25-cv-04166-KML
“… United States District Court in and for the District of Arizona;”Page 33 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (1)
In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, LLC (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al.
settledBrought by a third party · W. Craig Barber and Robert Langford (described as 'our' CEO and Chief Concept Officer) · filed 2017-12-01 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · 15-12406 (KG)
“… United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 2, 2015 (Case No. 15-12406 (KG)).”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Langford each settled with the Chapter 7 trustee by each agreeing to pay to the trustee and estate separate payments totaling $150,000 each over a three-year period.” (page 29)
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.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 8.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before your own operating costs.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12 (territory), 15 (owner participation) and 17 (renewal, termination and disputes)
Contract and territory detail
| Allowed renewals | 1 |
|---|---|
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territory | No |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Who runs it (Item 15) | Owner-operator not required |
| Non-compete (years) | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles) | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusal | Yes |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination grounds | 20 |
| Curable defaults | 5 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | County and state where the Franchised Business is located, before a single AAA arbitrator who is a licensed U.S. attorney with 5+ years franchise law experience |
Items 10 (financing), 11 (training and support)
Training and operations
- On-the-job training
- 160 hrs
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 4–18 mo
- From signing to launch (FDD p.60)
- Site selection
- franchisee_with_franchisor_approval
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
Items 5 (initial fees) & 11 (training and support)
Franchisor support
Franchisee contacts
We hold no owner list for this brand. Item 20 of the FDD lists the current and former owners; the free FDD is the source.
Frequently asked questions
How much does it cost to open a Baja Fresh Mexican Grill franchise?
Per the 2026 FDD, the total investment to open a Baja Fresh Mexican Grill franchise ranges from $429K to $1.0M, with an initial franchise fee of $30K. This is the Item 7 total in the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD): the startup costs the franchisor lists, such as build-out, equipment, inventory and working capital. The filing says these totals do not include site work and real estate.
What do Baja Fresh Mexican Grill franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Baja Fresh Mexican Grill FDD, average gross sales were $823K (Item 19 group “All franchised outlets”, 65 outlets; gross sales, not profit). The median is $813K. What an owner keeps depends on location, operating costs and management.
Who owns Baja Fresh Mexican Grill?
Baja Fresh Mexican Grill is franchised by BF Acquisition Holdings, LLC. Its parent company is MTY Franchising USA, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is MTY Food Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Baja Fresh Mexican Grill FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Baja Fresh Mexican Grill FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Baja Fresh Mexican Grill's franchise failure rate?
There is no published franchise failure rate. What is measurable is Baja Fresh Mexican Grill's SBA charge-off rate: 22.0% on 41 resolved loans approved FY2004 to FY2011. Put plainly: 1 in 5 SBA 7(a) loans to Baja Fresh Mexican Grill owners charged off (9 of 41 resolved loans, approved FY2004 to FY2011). The SBA charge-off rate is the share of a brand's resolved SBA 7(a) loans to its franchisees that the SBA wrote off, including purchased guarantees. Resolved means paid in full or charged off; active loans are excluded because their outcome is not yet known. It is a lending outcome, not a count of closed businesses. A franchisee can repay and close, or default and keep trading.
How many Baja Fresh Mexican Grill franchise locations are there?
Per the 2026 FDD, Baja Fresh Mexican Grill has 67 franchised units and 1 company-owned (68 in all). In the latest year, the number of franchised outlets did not change.
Is Baja Fresh Mexican Grill a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict gives Baja Fresh Mexican Grill a B Verdict grade (Second tier) with a verdict score of 54 out of 100 (higher is better), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Helped by financial health (audited financials) and transparency. Held back by unit economics (avg gross sales $823K on a $731K investment midpoint, 1.1x: gross sales, not profit). The “Why a B” section on this page lists all six dimensions and any adjustment. Speak with current franchisees before making any investment decision.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Similar investment first, then by grade
This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.