FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Bio-One litigation history

What Bio-One 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: 9; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: None stated

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

5 current matters: Jameson court case (removed to federal court, stayed pending JAMS); 3 substantively identical JAMS arbitrations (Gonzalez, Flohr, Tai); Nichols JAMS arbitration. All allege breach of contract re franchise relationship and required supplies. 4 prior: CA 2018 consent order (unregistered sale, $2,500); IL 2020 assurance (unregistered sale 2016, $2,000); WA 2020 consent order (FIPA violation, $1,000); CA 2021 consent order (omitting disclosure of officer felonies).

Item 3 (litigation) · 9 matters disclosed · 5 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (5)

Kevin Jameson v. Ringside Development Company
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-10-09 · Superior Court of Alameda County, California, removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; stayed pending JAMS arbitration · 24CV095186 and 24-cv-08654-CRB
“A former franchisee, Kevin Jameson, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, Case No. 24CV095186, captioned Kevin Jameson v. Ringside Development Company, which was served on and received by us on November 18, 2024 after being filed on October 9, 2024.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “its new case number there is 24-cv-08654-CRB, where the Court has entered a stay of the action, pending arbitration with JAMS.”
Latrice Gonzalez (and her affiliated entity) arbitration with JAMS
pending
Brought by a franchisee · JAMS
“Former franchisees, Latrice Gonzalez, Rene Flohr, and Lik Chuen Tai (and their affiliated entities, respectively) have filed substantively identical arbitration matters with JAMS to that of Mr. Jameson, with no prior court filings, likewise pending arbitration.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In each of these matters, the prerequisites to arbitrate had not been met by the former franchisees, and as a result, an arbitrator has not yet been appointed.”
Lik Chuen Tai (and his affiliated entity) arbitration with JAMS
pending
Brought by a franchisee · JAMS
“Former franchisees, Latrice Gonzalez, Rene Flohr, and Lik Chuen Tai (and their affiliated entities, respectively) have filed substantively identical arbitration matters with JAMS to that of Mr. Jameson, with no prior court filings, likewise pending arbitration.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In each of these matters, the prerequisites to arbitrate had not been met by the former franchisees, and as a result, an arbitrator has not yet been appointed.”
Rene Flohr (and his affiliated entity) arbitration with JAMS
pending
Brought by a franchisee · JAMS
“Former franchisees, Latrice Gonzalez, Rene Flohr, and Lik Chuen Tai (and their affiliated entities, respectively) have filed substantively identical arbitration matters with JAMS to that of Mr. Jameson, with no prior court filings, likewise pending arbitration.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In each of these matters, the prerequisites to arbitrate had not been met by the former franchisees, and as a result, an arbitrator has not yet been appointed.”
Travis Nichols (with his affiliated entity) arbitration with JAMS
pending
Brought by a franchisee · JAMS
“Our former franchisee, Travis Nichols, with his affiliated entity, has filed an arbitration proceeding with JAMS, in which he makes various civil claims relating to the franchise relationship, including for breach of contract and relating to use of required supplies, and seeks monetary damages for alleged losses.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Discovery is currently ongoing in this arbitration, with depositions scheduled.”

Concluded (4)

In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2021-05-27 · State of California, Commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
“On May 27, 2021, the State of California (through the Commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) and we entered into a “Consent Order” captioned: In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC., for which no case number or similar number was assigned.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “had three felony convictions in 2007. To avoid delay and costs of litigation, we settled the matter by agreeing to desist and refrain from violating Section 31200 of the California Franchise Investment Law.” (page 12)
In the Matter of Determining Whether There Has Been a Violation of the Franchise Investment Protections Act of Washington by: Ringside Development Company d/b/a Bio-One Colorado, Inc.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2020-11-04 · Securities Division of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions · S-20-3007-20-CO01
“On November 4, 2020, the State of Washington, through and with the Securities Division of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions) and we entered into a Consent Order (Order) captioned: In the Matter of Determining Whether There Has Been a Violation of the Franchise Investment Protections Act of Washington by: Ringside Development Company d/b/a Bio-One Colorado, Inc., and which document is assigned Order Number: S-20-3007-20-CO01.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “we agreed to pay Washington’s investigative fee in the amount of $1,000.00.”
In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC.
concluded
filed 2020-10-05 · State of Illinois, Attorney General's Office
“On October 5, 2020, the State of Illinois (through the Attorney General’s Office) and we entered into an “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance” (Assurance) captioned: In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC., for which no case number or similar number was assigned.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In the Assurance, we admitted that we sold a franchise in Illinois in 2016 without being properly registered. In settling the matter, we paid the state $2,000”
In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC.
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2018-11-07 · State of California, Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight (now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation)
“On November 7, 2018, the State of California (through the Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) and we entered into a “Consent Order” captioned: In the Matter of RINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY dba BIO-ONE, INC., for which no case number or similar number was assigned.”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In the consent, we admitted that we sold a franchise in California without being properly registered. In settling the matter, we paid the state $2,500”

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

Prior settlements with 3 states (CA, IL, WA) for registration violations and failure to disclose founder's felony convictions indicates regulatory compliance failures and governance concerns
Minimal unit growth (5.4% YoY) combined with active litigation creates doubt about franchisee satisfaction and system stability

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 Bio-One verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls