FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Blue Moon Estate Sales litigation history

What Blue Moon Estate Sales disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 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: 15; 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: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Blue Moon filed 2 suits against former franchisees for breach of contract/failure to pay monies owed (Woodley Corp 2026; Namburi 2025 - dismissed without prejudice). Multiple affiliate cases disclosed separately.

Item 3 (litigation) · 15 matters disclosed · 7 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC v. Woodley Corp and Jovan Woodley, an individual
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2026-02-05 · State of Michigan, Circuit Court for the County of Oakland · 2026-220746-CB
“… Case No. 2026- 220746-CB; State of Michigan, Circuit Court for the County of Oakland. On or about February 5, 2026, Blue Moon filed suit against the Defendants, former franchisees of Blue Moon for breach of contract and failure to pay monies owed.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “At the time of this disclosure, the parties are attempting to settle the matter outside of court.”

Concluded (1)

Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC v. Nyasha Namburi, an individual
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-10-22 · Superior Court of California, County of Fresno · 25CESC01188
“… Case No. 25CESC01188; Superior Court of California, County of Fresno On or about October 22, 2025, Blue Moon filed suit against the Defendant, a former franchisee of Blue Moon for failure to pay monies owed.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “At the time of this disclosure, the case was dismissed without prejudice.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (6)

Next Day Access, LLC v. Agape Mobility Access, Inc., Joel Varghese, and Feba Gabriel
pending
Brought against a franchisee · Next Day Access, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2026-02-24 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Brantford Ontario, Canada · SC-26-00000084-0000
“… Claim No. SC-26-00000084-0000; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Brantford Ontario, Canada On or about February 24, 2026, Next Day Access filed suit against Defendant, an Ontario, Canada franchisee, for failure to pay monies owed.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Next Day is currently demanding $43,066.71 in damages. As of the time of this disclosure, no trial date has been set.”
Boost Franchise Systems, LLC v. Patrick Indovina, an Individual
pending
Brought against a franchisee · Boost Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2025-10-20 · Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan · 2025-218387-CB
“… Case No. 2025-218387-CB; In the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan On or about October 20, 2025, Boost filed suit against Defendant, a franchisee of Boost, for breach of contract for failing to pay fees owed.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As of the time of this disclosure, this matter has not been set for trial.”
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Quality In Home Care LLC and Bartosz and Ewa Balaz, individuals
pending
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2025-11-07 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law Division · 2025L013873
“… Case No. 2025L013873; In the Circuit Court of Cook County; Illinois Law Division On or about November 7, 2025, ComForCare filed suite against Defendant for breach of contract and failure to pay monies owed.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “At the time of this disclosure, the parties are current attempting to settle the matter outside of the courts.”
Deora Deland v. ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC and At Your Side Home Care
pending
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2025-07-21 · District Court of Harris County, Texas · 202550555
“… Cause No. 202550555; In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, State of Texas On or about July 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant ComForCare as well as one of its Houston, Texas franchisees (“Defendant AYS’). Plaintiff claims that Defendant AYS failed to provide care”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about February 24, 2026, Defendant ComForCare filed a motion for summary judgement requesting that it be removed from the matter.”
Patrick Deadrick, By and Through His Successors in Interest, Phil Shirinian v. Maggie Artsvelian and Harry Artsvelian d/b/a ComForCare Home Care - West Hollywood; ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC; DOES 1-50; and DOES 51-60
pending
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate); named defendant ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-06-21 · Superior Court of the State of California In and For the County of Los Angeles · 24-SM-CV-03032
“Patrick Deadrick, By and Through His Successors in Interest, Phil Shirinian v. Maggie Artsvelian and Harry Artsvelian d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – West Hollywood; ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC; DOES 1-50; and DOES 51-60, Case No. 24-SM-CV-03032”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “ComForCare is not nor ever has been responsible for Plaintiff’s care and has no information regarding anything related to Plaintiff. The Court has yet to set a trial date.”
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care - Chester South, et. al.; and Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care - Chester South, et. al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2023-11-15 · State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland · 2023-203856; 2024-207989-CB
“ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – Chester South, et. al., Case No. 2023-203856; State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland; and Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – Chester South, et. al., Case No. 2024-207989-CB”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Defendant has appealed both rulings. At the time of this disclosure, no date has been set regarding any appeals or additional hearings.”

Concluded (7)

CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC v. BP Senior Resources LLC and Bonnie and Lance Parker
settled
Brought against a franchisee · CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2025-09-10 · Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County · CV2025-032829
“… Case No. CV2025-032829; In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County On or about September 10, 2025, CarePatrol filed suit against Defendants for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, breach of the non-compete, and the misappropriation of trade secrets under”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about February 20, 2026, the parties settled the matter wherein the Defendants were let out of the system by paying CarePatrol $31,500 as well as agreeing to stop any form of competition or use of trade secrets.” (page 17)
CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC v. Assisted Living Finders, LLC and Wendy Rickenbach-Barclay
settled
Brought against a franchisee · CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2024-06-13 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division · 2:24-cv-11556
“CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC v. Assisted Living Finders, LLC and Wendy Rickenbach- Barclay, Case No. 2:24-cv-11556; In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division On or about June 13, 2024, CarePatrol filed suit against Defendant, who was a former franchisee of CarePatrol, for violating the non-compete and confidentiality provisions”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about January 23, 2025, the parties settled the matter with Defendant agreeing to stop competing against CarePatrol and its franchised system for a period of 12 months.”
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Dahlia Home Care, Inc., et. al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (Common Controlled Affiliate) · filed 2024-02-07 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno · 24CECG00550
“… Case No. 24CECG00550; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno On or about February 7, 2024, ComForCare filed suit against Defendant, a current franchisee of ComForCare, for failing to timely pay fees owed under its Franchise Agreement, failing to provide access to its books and records,”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about December 31, 2025, the parties settled the matter.” (page 18)
WorkFit Medical Staffing, PLLC v. ComForCare Home Care, Riverside Parnters, LLC d/b/a The Riverside Company, and Best Life Brands
dismissed
ComForCare Home Care (affiliate ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC), with parent Best Life Brands, LLC and The Riverside Company · filed 2024-11-04 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe · Index No. E2024018476
“… Index No. E2024018476, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe On or about November 4, 2024, Plaintiff, a medical staffing agency located in Rochester, NY, filed suit against an independently owned and operated ComForCare Franchised Business”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about June 26, 2025, the Court dismissed ComForCare, Best Life Brands, LLC and the Riverside Group from the matter.”
Federal Trade Commission Docket No C-4379
concluded
Government or regulatory action · CAREPATROL, Inc. (named in error), predecessor franchisor to affiliate CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC · filed 2012-12-03 · Federal Trade Commission · C-4379
“… On December 3, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an administrative complaint against CAREPATROL, Inc. (which is not an existing entity but was incorrectly named), the predecessor franchisor to our Common Controlled Affiliate, CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC, alleging issues with certain wording on CarePatrol’s website.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “pursuant to FTC instructions. No consumer was involved nor made any complaint. There was no fine or penalty imposed.” (page 19)
Administrative Proceeding before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland
concluded
Government or regulatory action · ComForCare Health Care Holdings, Inc., predecessor franchisor to affiliate ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2010-0082
“… Case No. 2010-0082 In 2007, the predecessor franchisor (ComForCare Health Care Holdings, Inc.) to our Common Controlled Affiliate, ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC, filed a franchise renewal application in Maryland that was effectuated December 10, 2007,”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 15, 2010, ComForCare and the Maryland Securities Commissioner, reached an agreement to enter a Consent Order pursuant to which ComForCare agreed to cease and desist from offering or selling franchises in violation of Maryland Franchise Law and agreed to offer rescission to the three Maryland franchises. One franchisee elected to rescind.”
Administrative Proceeding before the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Predecessor franchisor to affiliate Next Day Access, LLC ('Next Day') · State of Minnesota Department of Commerce · 70650-BD
“… 70650-BD On February 11, 2022, the predecessor franchisor to our Common Controlled Affiliate, Next Day Access, LLC, consented to the entry of a Consent Order by the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce based upon the allegation that it sold two unregistered franchises in violation of Minn. Stat. § 80C.02 (2020).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In that Consent Order, Next Day agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 to the State of Minnesota and $180 in investigative costs.”

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 litigation involving breach of contract, non-compete violations, and misappropriation of trade secrets suggests systemic franchisor-franchisee disputes and potential operational constraints

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 Blue Moon Estate Sales verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls