FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Big O Tires litigation history
What Big O Tires 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
- 4
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- $2.0M
- 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
3 prior actions disclosed: (1) Fratilla v. Big O Tires class action re tire protection program; settled $2.05M. (2) TBC Retail Group Wage and Hour Cases JCCP 4701; settled $1.84M. (3) Black Donuts et al. franchisee fraud/breach claims; settled with nominal payment. Also 1 administrative action (People of CA v. Big O Tires re advertising, $25K penalty, permanent injunction).
Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (4)
TBC Retail Group Wage and Hour Cases
settledfiled 2012 · California Superior Court (coordinated proceeding; components were filed in Los Angeles County and Orange County) · JCCP Case No. 4701
“This action coordinated two class actions that were pending in two different California Superior Courts on February 10, 2012. This action coordinated Paul Quintana, as an Individual and on Behalf Of All Similarly Situated Employees v. Big O Tires, LLC, Case No. BC451272, Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Parties in both the Goegan and Quintana actions settled in 2018, with Big O agreeing to pay a total of $1.84 million, and the final order approving settlement was issued in March 2019. Black”
Black Donuts, Inc., Jan W. Talbot, Jeff Magna; T&T Pasadena, Inc., T&T Thousand Oaks, Inc., T&T Glendora, Inc., Tareq Nasrallah, Tony Nasrallah, G&G 2000, Inc., Jerry Riccio, Greg Minshell, Manzano, Inc., Kevin Raach, Chula Vista Tire, Inc., Jeff Yasukochi, Big Red Tire, Inc., James Park, Felix Bros
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2009 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC427136
“Plaintiffs, both current and former franchisees of ours, filed the initial Complaint in December 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that Big O made false statements and representations and withheld information that the Plaintiffs alleged was important in connection with their purchase of their Big O franchise. Plaintiffs initially claimed”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled with a nominal payment from Big O. Big O maintained counterclaims against several of the remaining plaintiffs, which resulted in the gross amount of $42,500 from such plaintiffs to” (page 14)
People of the State of California v. Big O Tires, Inc., et al.
judgmentGovernment or regulatory action · filed 1993 · San Diego County Superior Court in California · Civil Action No. 671161
“were the subject of an investigation regarding the advertising of store products and services by the Office of the City Attorney of San Diego. We cooperated with the California authorities in reviewing and assessing allegations as to whether violations of California law that regulate advertising had occurred, and in November 199”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As part of the Stipulation, the San Diego Target Franchisees and we agreed to pay certain costs and civil penalties totaling $35,000. Our portion totaled $25,000. Actions Filed Aga”
Fratilla, Brian Jeffrey v. Big O Tires, LLC
settledSuperior Court of California, San Diego County · 37-2013-00028542-CU-BT-CTL
“A purported class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of customers of Big O alleging that Big O’s former tire protection program (“Former TPP”) is actually an insurance contract under California law which required Big O to register as an insurer, comply with various formatting requirements and disclosures, and notify consumers th”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties reached a settlement under which Big O agreed to pay $2.05 million in total, which the Court has approved by order dated August 24, 2018. TBC Retail”
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
- Active multi-front litigation including franchisee misrepresentation claims that directly undermine trust in franchisor disclosures
- Three separate class action lawsuits (tire protection program, wage/hour violations at company stores, and franchisee false representations) suggest systemic operational or disclosure 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?